QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 11 2007, 06:23 AM)
But it's not funny Wulf. Look at Euler's posts.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=Sea...sult_type=posts
He's not even interested in reading or discussing the replies to this thread. It's just yet another "you're all a bunch of cranks" sneer. He pretends to be interested in psyche and psychology, but he's not. There's no sincerity. No dialogue.
See my big post earlier. I'm trying to make a difference, and I just don't get any help from people who ought to be trying to stop the rot.
I've shown you quite a few papers that formally describe models with properties similar to your own, and you just dismiss them. You can't get passed the interpretation of the author and look at what they are actually describing.
There are many ways to describe the same thing, many interpretations.
So it is hard for me to take statements like this seriously coming from you.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=Sea...sult_type=posts
He's not even interested in reading or discussing the replies to this thread. It's just yet another "you're all a bunch of cranks" sneer. He pretends to be interested in psyche and psychology, but he's not. There's no sincerity. No dialogue.
See my big post earlier. I'm trying to make a difference, and I just don't get any help from people who ought to be trying to stop the rot.
I've shown you quite a few papers that formally describe models with properties similar to your own, and you just dismiss them. You can't get passed the interpretation of the author and look at what they are actually describing.
There are many ways to describe the same thing, many interpretations.
QUOTE
Trippy: but the point is that you haven't looked, you haven't scrutinised. You're kidding yourself if you think you have.
So it is hard for me to take statements like this seriously coming from you.
QUOTE (MDT+Jul 11 2007, 05:55 PM)
One thing that scientists forget is that good science has it share of bloopers. Not everything that undergoes the rigors of science ends up panning out. The method may be valid but often the preliminary assumptions and expectations just don't reach expectation. So good science alone is not the best litmus test. Obviously a different preliminary screening process might be able to avoid bloopers. Currently, one must do science before we can tell if it is science. But by doing science, even if its does not pan out, it is still science since we can learn from mistakes?
I think a perfect example of this has been with regard to the idea of black holes and speed of light gravity. Einstein himself fell for this and imagined a black hole becoming some sort of fossilized remnant of the mass that's become disconnected from our universe yet somehow still able to propogate gravity at light speed out of an area that even light can't escape. Obviously this is a paradox and gravity must either propogate via. another medium (which would still make it not have light speed characteristics) or the original concept of a black hole doesn't physically exist (much more likely, in my opinion).
Since then many refinements and insights as well as possible alternative mechanisms presented by quantum mechanics that avoids this paradox but it took quite a while for these views to be altered. Mainstream scientific views are truly just about as democratically determined as presidential elections if people are relying solely on large scientific institutions to provide the current views. Otherwise people have to strike out on their own and resolve things satisfactorily themselves, if possible, because scientific advances come from individual insights and not institutional ones (probably most of what's taught as science currently was at one point considered crank theory and likely in another 100 years most of what's taught as science today will again seem archaic and ignorant. That doesn't mean it's not currently valuable but knowledge is dynamic as trial and error make advances as improvements occur ... but in the end it's individuals advancing the institution and not visa versa).
I think a perfect example of this has been with regard to the idea of black holes and speed of light gravity. Einstein himself fell for this and imagined a black hole becoming some sort of fossilized remnant of the mass that's become disconnected from our universe yet somehow still able to propogate gravity at light speed out of an area that even light can't escape. Obviously this is a paradox and gravity must either propogate via. another medium (which would still make it not have light speed characteristics) or the original concept of a black hole doesn't physically exist (much more likely, in my opinion).
Since then many refinements and insights as well as possible alternative mechanisms presented by quantum mechanics that avoids this paradox but it took quite a while for these views to be altered. Mainstream scientific views are truly just about as democratically determined as presidential elections if people are relying solely on large scientific institutions to provide the current views. Otherwise people have to strike out on their own and resolve things satisfactorily themselves, if possible, because scientific advances come from individual insights and not institutional ones (probably most of what's taught as science currently was at one point considered crank theory and likely in another 100 years most of what's taught as science today will again seem archaic and ignorant. That doesn't mean it's not currently valuable but knowledge is dynamic as trial and error make advances as improvements occur ... but in the end it's individuals advancing the institution and not visa versa).
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 11 2007, 08:55 PM)
Trippy: but the point is that you haven't looked, you haven't scrutinised. You're kidding yourself if you think you have.
Oh FFS.
Get over yourself.
You don't know what I have and haven't done.
How would you know about the hours i've wasted on Zephirs AWT, or Tsolkas's BS because I was actually willing to give them a fair chance.
It's not my fault they failed to produce evidence to convince me.
If I'm not looking, then why is it that I can see enough to point... Is it Ivars? Or Bukh, I can't recall which off the top of my head, in the direction of Holographic Information Theory because it resembled what he seemed to be saying for his 3d Pixel Universe, and I thought it might be useful for him.
So, once again, you're making assumptions that are hypocritical at best, and assigning me with traits that I have not earned and do not deserve, thus branding yourself as being more narrow minded then you claim that i'm being.
I at least am willing to entertain the possibility that I might be wrong, which automatically places me on a better footing then many of the people in this place that I would label as Cranks.
Oh FFS.
Get over yourself.
You don't know what I have and haven't done.
How would you know about the hours i've wasted on Zephirs AWT, or Tsolkas's BS because I was actually willing to give them a fair chance.
It's not my fault they failed to produce evidence to convince me.
If I'm not looking, then why is it that I can see enough to point... Is it Ivars? Or Bukh, I can't recall which off the top of my head, in the direction of Holographic Information Theory because it resembled what he seemed to be saying for his 3d Pixel Universe, and I thought it might be useful for him.
So, once again, you're making assumptions that are hypocritical at best, and assigning me with traits that I have not earned and do not deserve, thus branding yourself as being more narrow minded then you claim that i'm being.
I at least am willing to entertain the possibility that I might be wrong, which automatically places me on a better footing then many of the people in this place that I would label as Cranks.
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 11 2007, 08:55 AM)
He doesn't see any value, he doesn't see that I'm a Bachelor of Science.
Hi Farsight,
My god, have you really got a B.sc?
Cheers
Darren
Hi Farsight,
My god, have you really got a B.sc?
Cheers
Darren
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 11 2007, 08:55 PM)
Look at Euler, and the title of this thread. To him this forum is full of cranks, and there's nothing of value. He doesn't see any value, he doesn't see that I'm a Bachelor of Science. He just doesn't see it because in truth he isn't a scientist.
He doesn't see it because you post a load of rubbish!
The "it" he isn't seeing isn't there.
He doesn't see it because you post a load of rubbish!
The "it" he isn't seeing isn't there.
QUOTE
He's a mathematician.
Here is your real problem with Euler. His ability with maths enables him to easily spot the flaws in your posts.
A point of consideration between the title of this thread and the title of subforum:Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
If you look at the subforum title and spot a new theories at the end it is expected to see wild speculations and a lot of crazy ideas right? Or is that not what was expected? I assume "cranks" has to do more with not being mathematical about it and that is a valid critic i guess. I myself am a crank in that perspective and i should learn more maths if the expected debating was prefered in mathematicaly precise form. This filters us cranks out for the time we need to invest in comprehension and consistent use of such a tool. Such being the case one should come back only after one has advanced the skill.
For example (joke)- Its not a bad thing to re-invent general relativity for example. That would make you a real understander of GR.
And a firm supporter i guess
If you look at the subforum title and spot a new theories at the end it is expected to see wild speculations and a lot of crazy ideas right? Or is that not what was expected? I assume "cranks" has to do more with not being mathematical about it and that is a valid critic i guess. I myself am a crank in that perspective and i should learn more maths if the expected debating was prefered in mathematicaly precise form. This filters us cranks out for the time we need to invest in comprehension and consistent use of such a tool. Such being the case one should come back only after one has advanced the skill.
For example (joke)- Its not a bad thing to re-invent general relativity for example. That would make you a real understander of GR.
And a firm supporter i guess
I certainly do, Darren. See my earlier post on this thread explaining why I'm taking such an interest in physics. Do you still think the electromagnetic field is two different things?
No, he doesn't NOM. He hasn't spotted any flaws. All he does is hurl insults and abuse. Check back through his posts.
Your point noted Wulf. I've been very busy of late. I'll be free soon, and promise I'll get back on at least one paper with some considered reasoned feedback.
Good posts again MDT and StevenA.
No, he doesn't NOM. He hasn't spotted any flaws. All he does is hurl insults and abuse. Check back through his posts.
Your point noted Wulf. I've been very busy of late. I'll be free soon, and promise I'll get back on at least one paper with some considered reasoned feedback.
Good posts again MDT and StevenA.
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 12 2007, 12:26 PM)
Do you still think the electromagnetic field is two different things?
Hi Farsight,
Still sore about it,eh?, Yes i do still think of E-M radiation consists of 3 vectors but at the extremes of mathematical understanding which niether you or myself would understand and as such both E and B vectors can be compacted into one vector, so I am led to believe.
Cheers
Darren
Hi Farsight,
Still sore about it,eh?, Yes i do still think of E-M radiation consists of 3 vectors but at the extremes of mathematical understanding which niether you or myself would understand and as such both E and B vectors can be compacted into one vector, so I am led to believe.
Cheers
Darren
Not sore Darren, just right.
Remember that for when you think I don't understand something.
Remember that for when you think I don't understand something.
Oooh - I'm thrilled that my thread has caused such a response! Just wondering - have any of the physicist-wannabies explained why they adamantly refuse to spend some of their time learning, or has this been swept over? Just to recall, the only reasons I could come up with off the top of my head were:
Anyone managed to shed some light on the matter?
QUOTE (Euler+Jul 9 2007, 09:01 PM)
- Why read the volume 1, when you could simply tell people you've read all the way through to volume 10. You just have to hope they know less than you.
- It seems more like hard work to actually learn a subject, whereas there exist forums like this where you can pretend to know X, Y, Z and there are people willing to: a) not only believe you, but also b) talk about how your "knowledge" applies to their own theory of the universe.
- Having attempted to push through the first few pages of an introductory (i.e chilldrens) text book on basic physics, and found yourself considerably lacking. Rather than be embarrassed about your lack of intellectual capacity, you blame the simplicity of the theory and assume that it's because your acute mind is more suited to the more complex parts of physics.
- You are just pathetic, and you need something to fill your life. Because you don't know any physics, you don't know whether or not your idiotic ramblings contain some great insight (for the record, they don't). So you are able to live in the hope that you are doing something great, which might make you feel better about your sorry existence.
Anyone managed to shed some light on the matter?
QUOTE (Euler+Jul 13 2007, 06:37 AM)
Anyone managed to shed some light on the matter?
I thought my post the Dunning-Kruger effect explained many of them rather well. It's their lack of even the basic knowledge that doesn't allow them to recognise that they don't know the slightest thing about the subjects that they rant on about. And since they think they know it all, they are unwilling to learn.
I thought my post the Dunning-Kruger effect explained many of them rather well. It's their lack of even the basic knowledge that doesn't allow them to recognise that they don't know the slightest thing about the subjects that they rant on about. And since they think they know it all, they are unwilling to learn.
QUOTE (Euler+Jul 12 2007, 09:37 PM)
...have any of the physicist-wannabes explained why they adamantly refuse to spend some of their time learning, or has this been swept over?
Of course. At first, such question is demagogical, because most of these people don't want to become the physicists at all. They're not frustrated by the lack of math understandig, they simply want to understand the observable world, not to derive another mathematical equations. For example, for "physicist-wannabes" the formal description of how the photon behaves is not very interesting, the important the less. They want to understand at first, what the photon really is. This is a manifestation of the natural human inquisitiveness, not biased by some inter-subjective formalism.
While for the contemporary physicists such question is completely irrelevant. They're dealing with these concepts like these ancient bronze-age humans. They're not interested about the nature of their tools, they're fully satisfied by the fact, these tools are working by reproducible way, which can be extended arbitrarily. They're not interested about nature of reality, but about extrapolations of their imagination.
Therefore, from the mainstream theorists perspective "the learning" is not the process of understanding, what the bronze or photon is, it's simply the way, how to derive and use such tool by reproducible way. For many physicists the photon is empty and abstract concept by the exactly the same way, like the the circle integral or Delta function. Instead of photon they realize the wave function of photon for example and they're quite satisfied by such idea, while they can derive some new equations from it.
Simply because this is what they're dealing with all the time. Their thinking is deformed, biased by their profession. As the result, they're cannot reveal the trivial connections even at the case, such understanding can be quite simple, a much more simpler, then the nearly every model, which they're deriving all the time.
Of course. At first, such question is demagogical, because most of these people don't want to become the physicists at all. They're not frustrated by the lack of math understandig, they simply want to understand the observable world, not to derive another mathematical equations. For example, for "physicist-wannabes" the formal description of how the photon behaves is not very interesting, the important the less. They want to understand at first, what the photon really is. This is a manifestation of the natural human inquisitiveness, not biased by some inter-subjective formalism.
While for the contemporary physicists such question is completely irrelevant. They're dealing with these concepts like these ancient bronze-age humans. They're not interested about the nature of their tools, they're fully satisfied by the fact, these tools are working by reproducible way, which can be extended arbitrarily. They're not interested about nature of reality, but about extrapolations of their imagination.
Therefore, from the mainstream theorists perspective "the learning" is not the process of understanding, what the bronze or photon is, it's simply the way, how to derive and use such tool by reproducible way. For many physicists the photon is empty and abstract concept by the exactly the same way, like the the circle integral or Delta function. Instead of photon they realize the wave function of photon for example and they're quite satisfied by such idea, while they can derive some new equations from it.
Simply because this is what they're dealing with all the time. Their thinking is deformed, biased by their profession. As the result, they're cannot reveal the trivial connections even at the case, such understanding can be quite simple, a much more simpler, then the nearly every model, which they're deriving all the time.
QUOTE (N O M+Jul 12 2007, 10:04 PM)
I thought my post the Dunning-Kruger effect explained many of them rather well. It's their lack of even the basic knowledge that doesn't allow them to recognise that they don't know the slightest thing about the subjects that they rant on about. And since they think they know it all, they are unwilling to learn.
Certainly seems like a viable explanation to me, in a sort of "ignorance is bliss" kind of way.
Hi Wulf!
Hehehe. What point (stage?) is that, mate?
In physics or in maths....or in both?
RC.
.
The issue is your lack of understanding of math, not the other way around.
As far as physics is concerned, coming forward and saying that an electron ABSOLUTELY IS a particle would be unjustified, since it also has wave properties and thus that interpretation might be wrong.
Hi Wulf!
Hey maaaate....you are free to EXPLAIN the electron any way you like....as long as your explanation is consistent and complete 'mechanism-wise'.
Just DO it...or please stop 'knee-jerk' scorning and sneering at every skeptic/eccentric in sight WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION or deep thought...based only on your OWN PARTIAL state of orthodoxy.
You know the old saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"...at least NOT indiscriminately, heh Wulf!
It might help your attitude if you never forget that TODAY'S non-mathematical insight may be TOMORROW'S mathematical 'technique/tool'.
That's all, mate.
Good luck with your exams on what IS. And then good luck in your OWN further researches/explorations into what is TO BE. Assuming you don't stop questing/exploring after you pass the set exams on the orthodoxy as it stands AT THIS STAGE....in whatever field you want to work in future.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
What 'insights' are you referring to?
Have you considered that people may have been making an attempt to educate rather than suppress?
Certainly seems like a viable explanation to me, in a sort of "ignorance is bliss" kind of way.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 12 2007, 10:59 PM)
Of course...
Just to check, as I didn't really get a straight answer last time: do you actually aim for high scores on this test? It seems that once again you're racking the points up. It would be such a shame if your "crack-pottery" was so common, that people can even guess what you're going to say, before you say it! Now come on - try a little harder please.
Just to check, as I didn't really get a straight answer last time: do you actually aim for high scores on this test? It seems that once again you're racking the points up. It would be such a shame if your "crack-pottery" was so common, that people can even guess what you're going to say, before you say it! Now come on - try a little harder please.
I think Zeph considers the crank test more as a guidebook 
QUOTE (N O M+Jul 13 2007, 01:56 AM)
I think Zeph considers the crank test more as a guidebook.
The dualistic character of Aether phase transitions explains, why every significant progress in scientific evolution appears like the negation of the existing paradigms. A sort of R-1/R topological inversion of causality space. This is why the most progressive ideas appears like those most cranky ones. While the interior of water droplet doesn't differ very much from its environment very much, at the case of black hole droplet such difference is very pronounced one.
The dualistic character of Aether phase transitions explains, why every significant progress in scientific evolution appears like the negation of the existing paradigms. A sort of R-1/R topological inversion of causality space. This is why the most progressive ideas appears like those most cranky ones. While the interior of water droplet doesn't differ very much from its environment very much, at the case of black hole droplet such difference is very pronounced one.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 13 2007, 12:07 AM)
The dualistic character of Aether phase transitions explains, why every significant progress in scientific evolution appears like the negation of the existing paradigms. A sort of R-1/R topological inversion of causality space.
Fair do's, I can't tell any more if you're actually being serious. Either way though, this last post is hilarious - this is the kind of thing we'd like to see more of! In the quest to make yourself look like a complete idiot, you really do go above and beyond.
Fair do's, I can't tell any more if you're actually being serious. Either way though, this last post is hilarious - this is the kind of thing we'd like to see more of! In the quest to make yourself look like a complete idiot, you really do go above and beyond.
.
Hi Euler, NOM et al!
As a balancing study, it would be an interesting 'scientific exercise' to go back though all of the 'past orthodoxies' and compile a list of how many 'guardians' of those orthodoxies who were 'certain' and then were PROVEN WRONG or SHOWN THE WAY FORWARD by rank outsiders ("cranks") as well as insiders (the "anointed ones"), hehehe.
Oh....and NOM, Euler et al, please stop procrastinating....
You and all mathematicians/mathematical-physicists have YET to actually EXPLAIN to us poor, "ignorant non-mathematicians" PRECISELY WHAT an Electron or anything else IS....in objective and stand alone terms....and not just in 'abstract/relative' terms.
Until you CAN do so, walk humbly and observe the common courtesies.
I and all your 'targets' here would just love to hear these explanations from these 'non-ignorant' mathematicians/mathematical-physicists that you purport to represent. Thanks, guys.
RC.
.
Hi Euler, NOM et al!
As a balancing study, it would be an interesting 'scientific exercise' to go back though all of the 'past orthodoxies' and compile a list of how many 'guardians' of those orthodoxies who were 'certain' and then were PROVEN WRONG or SHOWN THE WAY FORWARD by rank outsiders ("cranks") as well as insiders (the "anointed ones"), hehehe.
Oh....and NOM, Euler et al, please stop procrastinating....
You and all mathematicians/mathematical-physicists have YET to actually EXPLAIN to us poor, "ignorant non-mathematicians" PRECISELY WHAT an Electron or anything else IS....in objective and stand alone terms....and not just in 'abstract/relative' terms.
Until you CAN do so, walk humbly and observe the common courtesies.
I and all your 'targets' here would just love to hear these explanations from these 'non-ignorant' mathematicians/mathematical-physicists that you purport to represent. Thanks, guys.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 12 2007, 05:24 PM)
.
Hi Euler, NOM et al!
As a balancing study, it would be an interesting 'scientific exercise' to go back though all of the 'past orthodoxies' and compile a list of how many 'guardians' of those orthodoxies who were 'certain' and then were PROVEN WRONG or SHOWN THE WAY FORWARD by rank outsiders ("cranks") as well as insiders (the "anointed ones"), hehehe.
Oh....and NOM, Euler et al, please stop procrastinating....
You and all mathematicians/mathematical-physicists have YET to actually EXPLAIN to us poor, "ignorant non-mathematicians" PRECISELY WHAT an Electron or anything else IS....in objective and stand alone terms....and not just in 'abstract/relative' terms.
Until you CAN do so, walk humbly and observe the common courtesies.
I and all your 'targets' here would just love to hear these explanations from these 'non-ignorant' mathematicians/mathematical-physicists that you purport to represent. Thanks, guys.
RC.
.
Mainly because such a description would be nothing more than a guess at this point.
Hi Euler, NOM et al!
As a balancing study, it would be an interesting 'scientific exercise' to go back though all of the 'past orthodoxies' and compile a list of how many 'guardians' of those orthodoxies who were 'certain' and then were PROVEN WRONG or SHOWN THE WAY FORWARD by rank outsiders ("cranks") as well as insiders (the "anointed ones"), hehehe.
Oh....and NOM, Euler et al, please stop procrastinating....
You and all mathematicians/mathematical-physicists have YET to actually EXPLAIN to us poor, "ignorant non-mathematicians" PRECISELY WHAT an Electron or anything else IS....in objective and stand alone terms....and not just in 'abstract/relative' terms.
Until you CAN do so, walk humbly and observe the common courtesies.
I and all your 'targets' here would just love to hear these explanations from these 'non-ignorant' mathematicians/mathematical-physicists that you purport to represent. Thanks, guys.
RC.
.
Mainly because such a description would be nothing more than a guess at this point.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 13 2007, 01:04 AM)
Mainly because such a description would be nothing more than a guess at this point.
Hi Wulf!
Hehehe. What point (stage?) is that, mate?
In physics or in maths....or in both?
RC.
.
Hi Wulf!
Hehehe. What point (stage?) is that, mate?
In physics or in maths....or in both?
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 12 2007, 07:20 PM)
Hi Wulf!
Hehehe. What point (stage?) is that, mate?
In physics or in maths....or in both?
RC.
.
The issue is your lack of understanding of math, not the other way around.
As far as physics is concerned, coming forward and saying that an electron ABSOLUTELY IS a particle would be unjustified, since it also has wave properties and thus that interpretation might be wrong.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 10 2007, 10:35 AM)
Well, I'm pretty sure, you're not Pamela Anderson, too.
So you're the Hoff!
That explains a lot.
So you're the Hoff!
That explains a lot.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 13 2007, 02:22 AM)
The issue is your lack of understanding of math, not the other way around.
As far as physics is concerned, coming forward and saying that an electron ABSOLUTELY IS a particle would be unjustified, since it also has wave properties and thus that interpretation might be wrong.
Hi Wulf!
Hey maaaate....you are free to EXPLAIN the electron any way you like....as long as your explanation is consistent and complete 'mechanism-wise'.
Just DO it...or please stop 'knee-jerk' scorning and sneering at every skeptic/eccentric in sight WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION or deep thought...based only on your OWN PARTIAL state of orthodoxy.
You know the old saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"...at least NOT indiscriminately, heh Wulf!
It might help your attitude if you never forget that TODAY'S non-mathematical insight may be TOMORROW'S mathematical 'technique/tool'.
That's all, mate.
Good luck with your exams on what IS. And then good luck in your OWN further researches/explorations into what is TO BE. Assuming you don't stop questing/exploring after you pass the set exams on the orthodoxy as it stands AT THIS STAGE....in whatever field you want to work in future.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
As far as physics is concerned, coming forward and saying that an electron ABSOLUTELY IS a particle would be unjustified, since it also has wave properties and thus that interpretation might be wrong.
Hi Wulf!
Hey maaaate....you are free to EXPLAIN the electron any way you like....as long as your explanation is consistent and complete 'mechanism-wise'.
Just DO it...or please stop 'knee-jerk' scorning and sneering at every skeptic/eccentric in sight WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION or deep thought...based only on your OWN PARTIAL state of orthodoxy.
You know the old saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"...at least NOT indiscriminately, heh Wulf!
It might help your attitude if you never forget that TODAY'S non-mathematical insight may be TOMORROW'S mathematical 'technique/tool'.
That's all, mate.
Good luck with your exams on what IS. And then good luck in your OWN further researches/explorations into what is TO BE. Assuming you don't stop questing/exploring after you pass the set exams on the orthodoxy as it stands AT THIS STAGE....in whatever field you want to work in future.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 12 2007, 09:25 PM)
Hi Wulf!
Hey maaaate....you are free to EXPLAIN the electron any way you like....as long as your explanation is consistent and complete 'mechanism-wise'.
Just DO it...or please stop 'knee-jerk' scorning and sneering at every skeptic/eccentric in sight WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION or deep thought...based only on your OWN PARTIAL state of orthodoxy.
You know the old saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"...at least NOT indiscriminately, heh Wulf!
It might help your attitude if you never forget that TODAY'S non-mathematical insight may be TOMORROW'S mathematical 'technique/tool'.
That's all, mate.
Good luck with your exams on what IS. And then good luck in your OWN further researches/explorations into what is TO BE. Assuming you don't stop questing/exploring after you pass the set exams on the orthodoxy as it stands AT THIS STAGE....in whatever field you want to work in future.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
What 'insights' are you referring to?
Have you considered that people may have been making an attempt to educate rather than suppress?
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 12 2007, 01:25 PM)
Not sore Darren, just right.
Remember that for when you think I don't understand something.
Hi Farsight,
Well, just hang on a minute, you claimed something about high level maths which was correct, by vertue of what AlphN. said. I would say that it is unfair on your part to simply claim you are correct, simply knowing something about high level maths deosn't mean you understand it and which Euler tested you on and you failed to give a correct answer. You even claimed that you were the worlds No.1 expert on magnetism, I doubt that very much?
In fact, I will be honest to everyone, classical field theory is NOT easy to understand by any ones standards and further, if anyone can grasp all of classical electrodynamics mathematically, I would say damn good achievement indeed.
Cheers
Darren
Remember that for when you think I don't understand something.
Hi Farsight,
Well, just hang on a minute, you claimed something about high level maths which was correct, by vertue of what AlphN. said. I would say that it is unfair on your part to simply claim you are correct, simply knowing something about high level maths deosn't mean you understand it and which Euler tested you on and you failed to give a correct answer. You even claimed that you were the worlds No.1 expert on magnetism, I doubt that very much?
In fact, I will be honest to everyone, classical field theory is NOT easy to understand by any ones standards and further, if anyone can grasp all of classical electrodynamics mathematically, I would say damn good achievement indeed.
Cheers
Darren
There's a difference, Darren. On the one hand you might understand what something really is and how it operates, yet be unfamiliar with the language used for calculation. On the other hand you might be able to do the mathematics standing on your head without having the faintest concept of what it is you're dealing with. Ideally people with something to offer on both fronts would get their act together and collectively make progress. But there a refusal to engage, as evidenced by Euler's sneering lack of sincerity on this thread. Yet another waste of time, sigh.
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 13 2007, 01:00 PM)
There's a difference, Darren. On the one hand you might understand what something really is and how it operates, yet be unfamiliar with the language used for calculation. On the other hand you might be able to do the mathematics standing on your head without having the faintest concept of what it is you're dealing with. Ideally people with something to offer on both fronts would get their act together and collectively make progress. But there a refusal to engage, as evidenced by Euler's sneering lack of sincerity on this thread. Yet another waste of time, sigh.
Hi Farsight,
The ultimate accolade in education is to obtain a either a physics or maths degree, the reason for its high value is because they are difficult to obtain unless you try and purchase one. Do you agree with that, yes or no?
Hi Farsight,
The ultimate accolade in education is to obtain a either a physics or maths degree, the reason for its high value is because they are difficult to obtain unless you try and purchase one. Do you agree with that, yes or no?
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 13 2007, 01:00 PM)
On the other hand you might be able to do the mathematics standing on your head without having the faintest concept of what it is you're dealing with.
What you have said there Farsight is a little nieve, how do think true physicists move around in GR?, it's with maths Farsight and nothing else, theres no fancy models other than maths models to play with. Silly billy.
Cheers
Darren
What you have said there Farsight is a little nieve, how do think true physicists move around in GR?, it's with maths Farsight and nothing else, theres no fancy models other than maths models to play with. Silly billy.
Cheers
Darren
Hi F'sight,
Your quote "On the one hand you might understand what something really is and how it operates, yet be unfamiliar with the language used for calculation. On the other hand you might be able to do the mathematics standing on your head without having the faintest concept of what it is you're dealing with. Ideally people with something to offer on both fronts would get their act together and collectively make progress. But there a refusal to engage, as evidenced by Euler's sneering lack of sincerity on this thread. Yet another waste of time, sigh."
completely ignores Applied Math and Sciences"
My first experience with this was projectile motion and conservation of energy. I , personally would not have been able to grasp either the math or physics without the combining of the 2.
How do you reconcile this well understood symbiosis?
Peace.
Ron
Your quote "On the one hand you might understand what something really is and how it operates, yet be unfamiliar with the language used for calculation. On the other hand you might be able to do the mathematics standing on your head without having the faintest concept of what it is you're dealing with. Ideally people with something to offer on both fronts would get their act together and collectively make progress. But there a refusal to engage, as evidenced by Euler's sneering lack of sincerity on this thread. Yet another waste of time, sigh."
completely ignores Applied Math and Sciences"
My first experience with this was projectile motion and conservation of energy. I , personally would not have been able to grasp either the math or physics without the combining of the 2.
How do you reconcile this well understood symbiosis?
Peace.
Ron
QUOTE (Darren+Jul 13 2007, 02:13 PM)
The ultimate accolade in education is to obtain a either a physics or maths degree, the reason for its high value is because they are difficult to obtain unless you try and purchase one. Do you agree with that, yes or no?
Receiving a higher degree could be considered an accolade in education but an even better one is finding yourself able to apply the knowledge successfully. A lot of very intellegent people don't have degrees in education, for various reasons, yet receive accolades outside this as they apply their knowledge in even non-educational arenas (how much time does one spend learning versus applying that knowledge?)
In many industries, including technical ones, experience and a proven ability to accomplish tasks is weighed more significantly than a degree, though this applies less to educational institutions (especially if they're tax subsidized).
Receiving a higher degree could be considered an accolade in education but an even better one is finding yourself able to apply the knowledge successfully. A lot of very intellegent people don't have degrees in education, for various reasons, yet receive accolades outside this as they apply their knowledge in even non-educational arenas (how much time does one spend learning versus applying that knowledge?)
In many industries, including technical ones, experience and a proven ability to accomplish tasks is weighed more significantly than a degree, though this applies less to educational institutions (especially if they're tax subsidized).
QUOTE (Darren+Jul 13 2007, 02:13 PM)
Hi Farsight,
The ultimate accolade in education is to obtain a either a physics or maths degree, the reason for its high value is because they are difficult to obtain unless you try and purchase one. Do you agree with that, yes or no?
What you have said there Farsight is a little nieve, how do think true physicists move around in GR?, it's with maths Farsight and nothing else, theres no fancy models other than maths models to play with. Silly billy.
Cheers
Darren
Yes, I'll agree with that, Darren. But we aren't talking about education. We're talking about science. See StevenA's post. Also read my earlier post where I answered Euler's OP to give my background. Note that I said I think mathematics is vital, but shouldn't be the only tool in the box. It's perfectly valid to develop a model before the mathematics is adequate. I've heard reputable physicists saying that the mathematics of String Theory is ten years behind. Oh, and learn how to spell "naive". LOL.
Ron, I agree with you. You need both aspects. You need the mental model that gives you the grasp, and the mathematics. The two should be symbiotic and work together. I was talking about what we see on this forum where a mathematician like Euler from a school of Applied mathematics and Theoretical Physics (no names please) shows absolutely no interest in concept, and instead starts a thread like this merely to sneer.
The ultimate accolade in education is to obtain a either a physics or maths degree, the reason for its high value is because they are difficult to obtain unless you try and purchase one. Do you agree with that, yes or no?
What you have said there Farsight is a little nieve, how do think true physicists move around in GR?, it's with maths Farsight and nothing else, theres no fancy models other than maths models to play with. Silly billy.
Cheers
Darren
Yes, I'll agree with that, Darren. But we aren't talking about education. We're talking about science. See StevenA's post. Also read my earlier post where I answered Euler's OP to give my background. Note that I said I think mathematics is vital, but shouldn't be the only tool in the box. It's perfectly valid to develop a model before the mathematics is adequate. I've heard reputable physicists saying that the mathematics of String Theory is ten years behind. Oh, and learn how to spell "naive". LOL.
Ron, I agree with you. You need both aspects. You need the mental model that gives you the grasp, and the mathematics. The two should be symbiotic and work together. I was talking about what we see on this forum where a mathematician like Euler from a school of Applied mathematics and Theoretical Physics (no names please) shows absolutely no interest in concept, and instead starts a thread like this merely to sneer.
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 13 2007, 06:39 PM)
Also read my earlier post where I answered Euler's OP to give my background.
I did skim that post - it seemed very much like you were attempting to excuse yourself from not knowing much about physics. If you claim otherwise, by all means have a look at this thread, and let us all know where your knowledge tails off.
I did skim that post - it seemed very much like you were attempting to excuse yourself from not knowing much about physics. If you claim otherwise, by all means have a look at this thread, and let us all know where your knowledge tails off.
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 13 2007, 06:39 PM)
Note that I said I think mathematics is vital, but shouldn't be the only tool in the box. It's perfectly valid to develop a model before the mathematics is adequate. I've heard reputable physicists saying that the mathematics of String Theory is ten years behind.
Ah - but mathematics isn't just an essential tool - it is the language of physics. You attempt to avoid this point as much as humanly possible, because it exposes the fact you know soooo little of the subject (physics). Let me make an example: classical electromagnetism is simply the consequences that follow from writing down Maxwell's equations. However, as you are one of the oh-so-many people on here that are intellectually inept, you don't understand what the equations mean (let alone be able to use them to study electromagnetism) and can only wave your arms about in a hope that something you say might tie in with the thoughts of those who know what they're talking about. I've mentioned this to others, but it applies to you too:
...there are thousands of stupid people, just like you, who spend their days pretending to understand physics - hell, lots of them send letters into the dept I work in. Why be just another uneducated, clueless, slightly pathetic physics-wannabe, when you could actually spend your time trying to learn about physics? The people in the Physics community laugh at people like you - this can't be what you want? If you genuinely feel you have a talent for the subject (although I don't know how, seeing as you know so little of it) then why not spend your time productively by learning some actual physics. Currently, all you are doing is akin to "Fairy Theory" (seek and ye shall find) - something ridiculous, laughable and a million miles away from actual physics. If you take a step back and realise what a fool you are making of yourself, it might give you the incentive to learn a little.
Take note for future reference, mate:
Educating someone doesn't mean having to mindlessly, arrogantly and unjustifiably stealing their human dignity.
Perhaps those maths/physics courses you and some others have attended should in future include instruction on how to be a human being as well as mathematician-physicists....and humble reminders on PRECISELY the 'uneducated' but 'brilliant' and 'insightful' cranks/non-mathematicians TO WHOM YOU OWE MOST OF THE CONCEPTS/CONSTRUCTS that YOU NOW MANIPULATE and struttingly (and more often than not 'mechanism-wise') UNcomprehendingly 'TALK-ABOUT' in mathematical 'language'.
As to what I meant by "...non-mathematical insights"....
Please read my post to Euler above....and multiply the scenario by a thousand times to include just SOME of the pioneers/cranks who gave your 'profession' what was needed before you and your maths/physics colleagues ever came onto the scene.
That process is taking place ALL THE TIME...it has NEVER STOPPED since ancient times and since Faraday's/Einstein's times etc. Just becuase you are in a particular profession doesn't mean you OWN the NEXT BIG INSIGHT in that field. The hairdresser down the road; or the ditchdigger; or the patent clerk; or the 'sickly kid who couldn't complete 'formal education' etc etc COULD come up with the next big insight that YOU will then go on to 'earn your crust' with by 'formalising' it while forgetting to whom you owe so much....like Farady is forgotten while Maxwell is your colleagues' 'poster boy'. Ungrateful, I call it, hehehe!
Take it easy, Wulf....some types of 'education' have 'trained the brains out of' and otherwised 'ruined' many an original/brilliant mind, hehehe. Let's hope yours will not one of them, eh!
Pax and respect, mate.
RC.
.
You did not answer the question. Your post was nothing more than verbal chaff.
Again I ask, what 'insights' are you referring to?
Ah - but mathematics isn't just an essential tool - it is the language of physics. You attempt to avoid this point as much as humanly possible, because it exposes the fact you know soooo little of the subject (physics). Let me make an example: classical electromagnetism is simply the consequences that follow from writing down Maxwell's equations. However, as you are one of the oh-so-many people on here that are intellectually inept, you don't understand what the equations mean (let alone be able to use them to study electromagnetism) and can only wave your arms about in a hope that something you say might tie in with the thoughts of those who know what they're talking about. I've mentioned this to others, but it applies to you too:
...there are thousands of stupid people, just like you, who spend their days pretending to understand physics - hell, lots of them send letters into the dept I work in. Why be just another uneducated, clueless, slightly pathetic physics-wannabe, when you could actually spend your time trying to learn about physics? The people in the Physics community laugh at people like you - this can't be what you want? If you genuinely feel you have a talent for the subject (although I don't know how, seeing as you know so little of it) then why not spend your time productively by learning some actual physics. Currently, all you are doing is akin to "Fairy Theory" (seek and ye shall find) - something ridiculous, laughable and a million miles away from actual physics. If you take a step back and realise what a fool you are making of yourself, it might give you the incentive to learn a little.
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 13 2007, 06:39 PM)
I was talking about what we see on this forum where a mathematician like Euler from a school of Applied mathematics and Theoretical Physics (no names please) shows absolutely no interest in concept, and instead starts a thread like this merely to sneer.
Let's take GR as an example, shall we. This consists of a number of postulates, and all the results that stem from these postulates follow from applying the mathematics of differential geometry to some Lorentzian manifold Einstein labelled "space-time". From this mathematics, I can form analogies, describe the qualitative nature of the equations, apply long-time asymptotics to analyse large scale properties, talk about why the curvature of the manifold does something at point p... the list goes on. I can qualitatively describe the physics, because I know the mathematics. You, on the other hand, can only receive the the qualitative descriptions (and watered down ones at that), and you have to hope that your understanding of these qualitative results compares to the actual theory. That is, you haven't a clue what you're on about!
However, in case I've got you all wrong, and you in fact do understand GR (or any other area of physics for that matter), I'm more than happy to procide you with an exercise so you can show us all the level that you're at. Please note - I said any area of physics; so I'm hoping you'll suggest something. It would be rather embarrassing if we were to find, after all your talk, that you were unable to answer questions on physics that are posed to school children.
Let's take GR as an example, shall we. This consists of a number of postulates, and all the results that stem from these postulates follow from applying the mathematics of differential geometry to some Lorentzian manifold Einstein labelled "space-time". From this mathematics, I can form analogies, describe the qualitative nature of the equations, apply long-time asymptotics to analyse large scale properties, talk about why the curvature of the manifold does something at point p... the list goes on. I can qualitatively describe the physics, because I know the mathematics. You, on the other hand, can only receive the the qualitative descriptions (and watered down ones at that), and you have to hope that your understanding of these qualitative results compares to the actual theory. That is, you haven't a clue what you're on about!
However, in case I've got you all wrong, and you in fact do understand GR (or any other area of physics for that matter), I'm more than happy to procide you with an exercise so you can show us all the level that you're at. Please note - I said any area of physics; so I'm hoping you'll suggest something. It would be rather embarrassing if we were to find, after all your talk, that you were unable to answer questions on physics that are posed to school children.
QUOTE (Euler to Farsight+Jul 13 2007, 09:04 PM)
I did skim that post - it seemed very much like you were attempting to excuse yourself from not knowing much about physics. If you claim otherwise, by all means have a look at this thread, and let us all know where your knowledge tails off.
Ah - but mathematics isn't just an essential tool - it is the language of physics. You attempt to avoid this point as much as humanly possible, because it exposes the fact you know soooo little of the subject (physics). Let me make an example: classical electromagnetism is simply the consequences that follow from writing down Maxwell's equations. However, as you are one of the oh-so-many people on here that are intellectually inept, you don't understand what the equations mean (let alone be able to use them to study electromagnetism) and can only wave your arms about in a hope that something you say might tie in with the thoughts of those who know what they're talking about. I've mentioned this to others, but it applies to you too:
...there are thousands of stupid people, just like you, who spend their days pretending to understand physics - hell, lots of them send letters into the dept I work in. Why be just another uneducated, clueless, slightly pathetic physics-wannabe, when you could actually spend your time trying to learn about physics? The people in the Physics community laugh at people like you - this can't be what you want? If you genuinely feel you have a talent for the subject (although I don't know how, seeing as you know so little of it) then why not spend your time productively by learning some actual physics. Currently, all you are doing is akin to "Fairy Theory" (seek and ye shall find) - something ridiculous, laughable and a million miles away from actual physics. If you take a step back and realise what a fool you are making of yourself, it might give you the incentive to learn a little.
Let's take GR as an example, shall we. This consists of a number of postulates, and all the results that stem from these postulates follow from applying the mathematics of differential geometry to some Lorentzian manifold Einstein labelled "space-time". From this mathematics, I can form analogies, describe the qualitative nature of the equations, apply long-time asymptotics to analyse large scale properties, talk about why the curvature of the manifold does something at point p... the list goes on. I can qualitatively describe the physics, because I know the mathematics. You, on the other hand, can only receive the the qualitative descriptions (and watered down ones at that), and you have to hope that your understanding of these qualitative results compares to the actual theory. That is, you haven't a clue what you're on about!
However, in case I've got you all wrong, and you in fact do understand GR (or any other area of physics for that matter), I'm more than happy to procide you with an exercise so you can show us all the level that you're at. Please note - I said any area of physics; so I'm hoping you'll suggest something. It would be rather embarrassing if we were to find, after all your talk, that you were unable to answer questions on physics that are posed to school children.
Hi Euler!
I think you owe Mr Michael Faraday an apology, mate!
Since according to you he also was an 'uneducated wanabe crank' who also had NO maths to guide him.....and note that Maxwell's equations merely 'formalised' Faraday's REAL Electromagnetism Theory insights/results into his Equations.
About Mr Faraday (from Wiki)......
And you implying that no profound and insightful/meaningful/legitimate/productive physics communication/conversation can take place without 'mathematics' is akin to implying that no profound and insightful/meaningful/legitimate/productive commercial/human communication/conversation can take place without 'shorthand'. Give up that elitist thinking and get rel, matey. Science belongs to everybody, not just to 'mathematical linguists' who haven't a clue what it is they are ''talking about' when it comes to 'explaining' MECHANISMS and not just abstract mathematical/geometrical inter-relationships.
I think you also owe an apology to Farsight and everyone else here that you have insulted without comprehending what you are 'elitistly' and arrogantly boasting, ranting and raving about.
I am sure they all will be gracious ladies and gentlemen and accept your sincere apology and forgive and forget, mate!
Note where it says that Mr Faraday did ALL THAT REAL WORK with NO mathematics....and that MATHEMATICIANS only came to 'formalise' HIS work....and not to REALLY COMPREHEND it AS FARADAY HAD done long before any mathematician was even in the picture.
Humility and self-restraint would be a better field of study for you and some of your colleagues, matey!
Live and let live....you might actually learn to comprehend something other than your vanity, chaps.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Ah - but mathematics isn't just an essential tool - it is the language of physics. You attempt to avoid this point as much as humanly possible, because it exposes the fact you know soooo little of the subject (physics). Let me make an example: classical electromagnetism is simply the consequences that follow from writing down Maxwell's equations. However, as you are one of the oh-so-many people on here that are intellectually inept, you don't understand what the equations mean (let alone be able to use them to study electromagnetism) and can only wave your arms about in a hope that something you say might tie in with the thoughts of those who know what they're talking about. I've mentioned this to others, but it applies to you too:
...there are thousands of stupid people, just like you, who spend their days pretending to understand physics - hell, lots of them send letters into the dept I work in. Why be just another uneducated, clueless, slightly pathetic physics-wannabe, when you could actually spend your time trying to learn about physics? The people in the Physics community laugh at people like you - this can't be what you want? If you genuinely feel you have a talent for the subject (although I don't know how, seeing as you know so little of it) then why not spend your time productively by learning some actual physics. Currently, all you are doing is akin to "Fairy Theory" (seek and ye shall find) - something ridiculous, laughable and a million miles away from actual physics. If you take a step back and realise what a fool you are making of yourself, it might give you the incentive to learn a little.
Let's take GR as an example, shall we. This consists of a number of postulates, and all the results that stem from these postulates follow from applying the mathematics of differential geometry to some Lorentzian manifold Einstein labelled "space-time". From this mathematics, I can form analogies, describe the qualitative nature of the equations, apply long-time asymptotics to analyse large scale properties, talk about why the curvature of the manifold does something at point p... the list goes on. I can qualitatively describe the physics, because I know the mathematics. You, on the other hand, can only receive the the qualitative descriptions (and watered down ones at that), and you have to hope that your understanding of these qualitative results compares to the actual theory. That is, you haven't a clue what you're on about!
However, in case I've got you all wrong, and you in fact do understand GR (or any other area of physics for that matter), I'm more than happy to procide you with an exercise so you can show us all the level that you're at. Please note - I said any area of physics; so I'm hoping you'll suggest something. It would be rather embarrassing if we were to find, after all your talk, that you were unable to answer questions on physics that are posed to school children.
Hi Euler!
I think you owe Mr Michael Faraday an apology, mate!
Since according to you he also was an 'uneducated wanabe crank' who also had NO maths to guide him.....and note that Maxwell's equations merely 'formalised' Faraday's REAL Electromagnetism Theory insights/results into his Equations.
About Mr Faraday (from Wiki)......
QUOTE
Michael Faraday, FRS (September 22, 1791 – August 25, 1867) was an English chemist and physicist (or natural philosopher, in the terminology of
that time) who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.
Faraday studied the magnetic field around a conductor carrying a DC electric current, and established the basis for the magnetic field concept in physics.
He discovered electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism and electrolysis. He established that magnetism could affect rays of light and that there was an
underlying relationship between the two phenomena.[2] [3]
His inventions of electromagnetic rotary devices formed the foundation of electric motor technology.
As a chemist, Faraday discovered chemical substances such as benzene, invented an early form of the bunsen burner and the system of oxidation numbers,
and popularized terminology such as anode, cathode, electrode, and ion.
Although he received little formal education and thus higher mathematics like calculus was always out of his reach, he went on to become one of the most
influential scientists in history. Some historians[4] of science refer to him as the best experimentalist in the history of science.[5] It was largely due to his
efforts that electricity became viable for use in technology. The SI unit of capacitance, the farad, is named after him, as is the Faraday constant, the charge
on a mole of electrons (about 96,485 coulombs). Faraday's law of induction states that a magnetic field changing in time creates a proportional
electromotive force.
He was Fullerian Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, the first, and most famous, holder of this position to which he was
appointed for life.
that time) who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism and electrochemistry.
Faraday studied the magnetic field around a conductor carrying a DC electric current, and established the basis for the magnetic field concept in physics.
He discovered electromagnetic induction, diamagnetism and electrolysis. He established that magnetism could affect rays of light and that there was an
underlying relationship between the two phenomena.[2] [3]
His inventions of electromagnetic rotary devices formed the foundation of electric motor technology.
As a chemist, Faraday discovered chemical substances such as benzene, invented an early form of the bunsen burner and the system of oxidation numbers,
and popularized terminology such as anode, cathode, electrode, and ion.
Although he received little formal education and thus higher mathematics like calculus was always out of his reach, he went on to become one of the most
influential scientists in history. Some historians[4] of science refer to him as the best experimentalist in the history of science.[5] It was largely due to his
efforts that electricity became viable for use in technology. The SI unit of capacitance, the farad, is named after him, as is the Faraday constant, the charge
on a mole of electrons (about 96,485 coulombs). Faraday's law of induction states that a magnetic field changing in time creates a proportional
electromotive force.
He was Fullerian Professor of Chemistry at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, the first, and most famous, holder of this position to which he was
appointed for life.
And you implying that no profound and insightful/meaningful/legitimate/productive physics communication/conversation can take place without 'mathematics' is akin to implying that no profound and insightful/meaningful/legitimate/productive commercial/human communication/conversation can take place without 'shorthand'. Give up that elitist thinking and get rel, matey. Science belongs to everybody, not just to 'mathematical linguists' who haven't a clue what it is they are ''talking about' when it comes to 'explaining' MECHANISMS and not just abstract mathematical/geometrical inter-relationships.
I think you also owe an apology to Farsight and everyone else here that you have insulted without comprehending what you are 'elitistly' and arrogantly boasting, ranting and raving about.
I am sure they all will be gracious ladies and gentlemen and accept your sincere apology and forgive and forget, mate!
Note where it says that Mr Faraday did ALL THAT REAL WORK with NO mathematics....and that MATHEMATICIANS only came to 'formalise' HIS work....and not to REALLY COMPREHEND it AS FARADAY HAD done long before any mathematician was even in the picture.
Humility and self-restraint would be a better field of study for you and some of your colleagues, matey!
Live and let live....you might actually learn to comprehend something other than your vanity, chaps.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 13 2007, 03:59 AM)
What 'insights' are you referring to?
Have you considered that people may have been making an attempt to educate rather than suppress?
Take note for future reference, mate:
Educating someone doesn't mean having to mindlessly, arrogantly and unjustifiably stealing their human dignity...that is what 'brainwashing' is all about. By all means 'educate', but leave out those tactics or don't bother at all...because true and worthy educators DON'T need or use such tactics.
Perhaps those maths/physics courses you and some others have attended should in future include instruction on how to be a human being as well as mathematician-physicists....and humble reminders on PRECISELY the 'uneducated' but 'brilliant' and 'insightful' cranks/non-mathematicians TO WHOM YOU OWE MOST OF THE CONCEPTS/CONSTRUCTS that YOU NOW MANIPULATE and struttingly (and more often than not 'mechanism-wise') UNcomprehendingly 'TALK-ABOUT' in mathematical 'language'.
As to what I meant by "...non-mathematical insights"....
Please read my post to Euler above....and multiply the scenario by a thousand times to include just SOME of the pioneers/cranks who gave your 'profession' what was needed before you and your maths/physics colleagues ever came onto the scene.
That process is taking place ALL THE TIME...it has NEVER STOPPED since ancient times and since Faraday's/Einstein's times etc. Just because you are in a particular profession doesn't mean you OWN the NEXT BIG INSIGHT in that field. The hairdresser down the road; or the ditchdigger; or the patent clerk; or the 'sickly kid who couldn't complete 'formal education' etc etc COULD come up with the next big insight that YOU will then go on to 'earn your crust' with by 'formalising' it while forgetting to whom you owe so much....like Farady is forgotten while Maxwell is your colleagues' 'poster boy'. Ungrateful, I call it, hehehe!
Take it easy, Wulf....some types of 'education' have 'trained the brains out of' and otherwised 'ruined' many an original/brilliant mind, hehehe. Let's hope yours will not be one of them, eh!
Pax and respect, mate.
RC.
.
Have you considered that people may have been making an attempt to educate rather than suppress?
Take note for future reference, mate:
Educating someone doesn't mean having to mindlessly, arrogantly and unjustifiably stealing their human dignity...that is what 'brainwashing' is all about. By all means 'educate', but leave out those tactics or don't bother at all...because true and worthy educators DON'T need or use such tactics.
Perhaps those maths/physics courses you and some others have attended should in future include instruction on how to be a human being as well as mathematician-physicists....and humble reminders on PRECISELY the 'uneducated' but 'brilliant' and 'insightful' cranks/non-mathematicians TO WHOM YOU OWE MOST OF THE CONCEPTS/CONSTRUCTS that YOU NOW MANIPULATE and struttingly (and more often than not 'mechanism-wise') UNcomprehendingly 'TALK-ABOUT' in mathematical 'language'.
As to what I meant by "...non-mathematical insights"....
Please read my post to Euler above....and multiply the scenario by a thousand times to include just SOME of the pioneers/cranks who gave your 'profession' what was needed before you and your maths/physics colleagues ever came onto the scene.
That process is taking place ALL THE TIME...it has NEVER STOPPED since ancient times and since Faraday's/Einstein's times etc. Just because you are in a particular profession doesn't mean you OWN the NEXT BIG INSIGHT in that field. The hairdresser down the road; or the ditchdigger; or the patent clerk; or the 'sickly kid who couldn't complete 'formal education' etc etc COULD come up with the next big insight that YOU will then go on to 'earn your crust' with by 'formalising' it while forgetting to whom you owe so much....like Farady is forgotten while Maxwell is your colleagues' 'poster boy'. Ungrateful, I call it, hehehe!
Take it easy, Wulf....some types of 'education' have 'trained the brains out of' and otherwised 'ruined' many an original/brilliant mind, hehehe. Let's hope yours will not be one of them, eh!
Pax and respect, mate.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2007, 04:28 PM)
Take note for future reference, mate:
Educating someone doesn't mean having to mindlessly, arrogantly and unjustifiably stealing their human dignity.
Perhaps those maths/physics courses you and some others have attended should in future include instruction on how to be a human being as well as mathematician-physicists....and humble reminders on PRECISELY the 'uneducated' but 'brilliant' and 'insightful' cranks/non-mathematicians TO WHOM YOU OWE MOST OF THE CONCEPTS/CONSTRUCTS that YOU NOW MANIPULATE and struttingly (and more often than not 'mechanism-wise') UNcomprehendingly 'TALK-ABOUT' in mathematical 'language'.
As to what I meant by "...non-mathematical insights"....
Please read my post to Euler above....and multiply the scenario by a thousand times to include just SOME of the pioneers/cranks who gave your 'profession' what was needed before you and your maths/physics colleagues ever came onto the scene.
That process is taking place ALL THE TIME...it has NEVER STOPPED since ancient times and since Faraday's/Einstein's times etc. Just becuase you are in a particular profession doesn't mean you OWN the NEXT BIG INSIGHT in that field. The hairdresser down the road; or the ditchdigger; or the patent clerk; or the 'sickly kid who couldn't complete 'formal education' etc etc COULD come up with the next big insight that YOU will then go on to 'earn your crust' with by 'formalising' it while forgetting to whom you owe so much....like Farady is forgotten while Maxwell is your colleagues' 'poster boy'. Ungrateful, I call it, hehehe!
Take it easy, Wulf....some types of 'education' have 'trained the brains out of' and otherwised 'ruined' many an original/brilliant mind, hehehe. Let's hope yours will not one of them, eh!
Pax and respect, mate.
RC.
.
You did not answer the question. Your post was nothing more than verbal chaff.
Again I ask, what 'insights' are you referring to?
QUOTE (Wikipedia on Faraday+)
Although he received little formal education and thus higher mathematics like calculus was always out of his reach, he went on to become one of the most influential scientists in history. Some historians of science refer to him as the best experimentalist in the history of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
You don't need an education to be an experimentalist, but he did have an education. He started as an assistant to Professor Humphry Davy. He built and measured real working things. This is not the behavior of a crank.
He was well-read and actively tried to learn what others had learned and find out answers to questions people didn't know the answers to. This is also not the behavior of a crank.
http://www.archive.org/details/lettersoffaraday00fararich
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
You don't need an education to be an experimentalist, but he did have an education. He started as an assistant to Professor Humphry Davy. He built and measured real working things. This is not the behavior of a crank.
He was well-read and actively tried to learn what others had learned and find out answers to questions people didn't know the answers to. This is also not the behavior of a crank.
http://www.archive.org/details/lettersoffaraday00fararich
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2007, 11:07 PM)
I think you owe Mr Michael Faraday an apology, mate!
Please, at least read the things you link to - otherwise it makes all this a little tiresome. Faraday was an experimentalist - he conducted hundreds upon hundreds of experiments, upon which he made several conjectures. Conjectures he thought to be true because his experiments led him to believe them to be so. Which experiments have you currently undertook? Which numerical results would you like to provide us with to back your arm-waving? Please, do tell...
Additionally - your overuse of the word "mate" is misguided: I very much doubt many of the people you address in this manner class you as such. I, for instance, consider you an idiot, and wouldn't in a million years consider you a friend.
Please, at least read the things you link to - otherwise it makes all this a little tiresome. Faraday was an experimentalist - he conducted hundreds upon hundreds of experiments, upon which he made several conjectures. Conjectures he thought to be true because his experiments led him to believe them to be so. Which experiments have you currently undertook? Which numerical results would you like to provide us with to back your arm-waving? Please, do tell...
Additionally - your overuse of the word "mate" is misguided: I very much doubt many of the people you address in this manner class you as such. I, for instance, consider you an idiot, and wouldn't in a million years consider you a friend.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jul 13 2007, 11:58 PM)
QUOTE (Wikipedia on Faraday+)
Although he received little formal education and thus higher mathematics like calculus was always out of his reach, he went on to become one of the most influential scientists in history. Some historians of science refer to him as the best experimentalist in the history of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
You don't need an education to be an experimentalist, but he did have an education. He started as an assistant to Professor Humphry Davy. He built and measured real working things. This is not the behavior of a crank.
He was well-read and actively tried to learn what others had learned and find out answers to questions people didn't know the answers to. This is also not the behavior of a crank.
http://www.archive.org/details/lettersoffaraday00fararich
Hi rpenner!
Always glad to renew acqaintance with a reasonable mathematical type, mate!
One point was that not ALL 'uneducated' (in mathematics) people are AUTOMATICALLY 'cranks' and useless 'physics wannabes'.
Thanks for helping me point that out to Euler.
Another point was that not ALL 'uneducated' people AT A CERTAIN STAGE IN THEIR LIVES will AUTOMATICALLY remain so ALWAYS.
Thanks for helping me point THAT out also to Euler.
Yet another point was that NOT ALL currently 'uneducated' people are NECESSARILY IN A POSITION to 'work' PROFESSIONALLY in the field where their interest/insights occur.
That is the range of personal/historical circumstances THAT MUST BE ALLOWED FOR when 'discriminating' BETWEEN cranks of all sorts.
Thanks for helping me point out THAT as well to Euler.
And finally let's not forget the original EDIFYING AND REVEALING AND (hopefully for some) HUMBLING point that NO MATHEMATICS was involved AS SUCH in Farady's brilliant and wide-ranging Electro-magnetism insights....which only needed formalising AFTER his own comprehensions occurred/connected in a REAL SENSE.
Good to see ya again, mate! Keep up your good and patient and understanding edification efforts, rpenner!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Hi Euler...maaaate!
That term covers many subtleties, mate!
We Aussies have elevated its use to a fine art, hehehe.
Anyway, it's a little 'precious' of you to find that 'irksome', isn't it, matey mate mate?
I mean, don't you think YOUR constant and indiscriminate insults are somewhat 'misguided' and 'irksome' to those who are your intellectual equal or better....even if they aren't YOUR type of intellect (for which I am sure that they thank the fates daily!hehehe)?
Oh, and mate....mate.....mate.....since you attempted to quote rpenner 'as supporting argument', perhaps you may be interested in my reply to him just now....and especially note how that quoted passage and rpenner's comments actually assisted in pointing out to YOU the error of your ways rather than supported your vendetta against all you despise for not being 'educated' to YOUR pathetic state of educated ignorance'.
PS: Oh, and don't take any 'wooden orthodoxies', mate! hehehe.
RC.
.
Very mature post.
Very mature post
Thanks Wulf!
I'm trying to reach the level of maturity and education of Euler. It seems that mature and edifying replies don't hit the mark where his intellect is concerned.
Does it annoy you that I emulate his approach to debating.
Oh dear, now WHY do you think that is NOT annoying when Euler does it, I wonder?
Anyhow, did you catch my reply to rpenner regarding the Euler pathos?
Why don't you quote that too, mate?
It's not because it contains 'an inconvenient truth' some may want to 'edit and forget' out of the 'quoting' record, is it?
Cheers all...and play nice!
Never forget: "What goes around, comes around"!hehehe.
RC.
.
Thanks Wulf!
Did you catch my reply to rpenner regarding the Euler pathos?
Why don't you quote that too, mate?
It's not because it contains 'an inconvenient truth' you don't want to 'edit' out of your 'quoting' record, is it?
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Actually, you didn't grasp the argument that was being made. Rpenner's post in no way supported your claims.
Your point was not proven, in fact all you managed to do was reveal your own ignorance. On top of that you provided us with a vivid example of what lies beneath that mask of false courtesy you have been hiding behind.
Thank you for providing us for such a revealing look into the psyche of the common crank, I don't think Euler could have found a better example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
You don't need an education to be an experimentalist, but he did have an education. He started as an assistant to Professor Humphry Davy. He built and measured real working things. This is not the behavior of a crank.
He was well-read and actively tried to learn what others had learned and find out answers to questions people didn't know the answers to. This is also not the behavior of a crank.
http://www.archive.org/details/lettersoffaraday00fararich
Hi rpenner!
Always glad to renew acqaintance with a reasonable mathematical type, mate!
One point was that not ALL 'uneducated' (in mathematics) people are AUTOMATICALLY 'cranks' and useless 'physics wannabes'.
Thanks for helping me point that out to Euler.
Another point was that not ALL 'uneducated' people AT A CERTAIN STAGE IN THEIR LIVES will AUTOMATICALLY remain so ALWAYS.
Thanks for helping me point THAT out also to Euler.
Yet another point was that NOT ALL currently 'uneducated' people are NECESSARILY IN A POSITION to 'work' PROFESSIONALLY in the field where their interest/insights occur.
That is the range of personal/historical circumstances THAT MUST BE ALLOWED FOR when 'discriminating' BETWEEN cranks of all sorts.
Thanks for helping me point out THAT as well to Euler.
And finally let's not forget the original EDIFYING AND REVEALING AND (hopefully for some) HUMBLING point that NO MATHEMATICS was involved AS SUCH in Farady's brilliant and wide-ranging Electro-magnetism insights....which only needed formalising AFTER his own comprehensions occurred/connected in a REAL SENSE.
Good to see ya again, mate! Keep up your good and patient and understanding edification efforts, rpenner!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Euler+Jul 14 2007, 12:08 AM)
Please, at least read the things you link to - otherwise it makes all this a little tiresome. Faraday was an experimentalist - he conducted hundreds upon hundreds of experiments, upon which he made several conjectures. Conjectures he thought to be true because his experiments led him to believe them to be so. Which experiments have you currently undertook? Which numerical results would you like to provide us with to back your arm-waving? Please, do tell...
Additionally - your overuse of the word "mate" is misguided: I very much doubt many of the people you address in this manner class you as such. I, for instance, consider you an idiot, and wouldn't in a million years consider you a friend.
Hi Euler...maaaate!
That term covers many subtleties, mate!
We Aussies have elevated its use to a fine art, hehehe.
Anyway, it's a little 'precious' of you to find that 'irksome', isn't it, matey mate mate?
I mean, don't you think YOUR constant and indiscriminate insults are somewhat 'misguided' and 'irksome' to those who are your intellectual equal or better....even if they aren't YOUR type of intellect (for which I am sure that they thank the fates daily!hehehe)?
Oh, and mate....mate.....mate.....since you attempted to quote rpenner 'as supporting argument', perhaps you may be interested in my reply to him just now....and especially note how that quoted passage and rpenner's comments actually assisted in pointing out to YOU the error of your ways rather than supported your vendetta against all you despise for not being 'educated' to YOUR pathetic state of 'educated ignorance and intellectual bigotry'.
PS: Oh, and don't take any 'wooden orthodoxies', mate! hehehe.
RC.
.
Additionally - your overuse of the word "mate" is misguided: I very much doubt many of the people you address in this manner class you as such. I, for instance, consider you an idiot, and wouldn't in a million years consider you a friend.
Hi Euler...maaaate!
That term covers many subtleties, mate!
We Aussies have elevated its use to a fine art, hehehe.
Anyway, it's a little 'precious' of you to find that 'irksome', isn't it, matey mate mate?
I mean, don't you think YOUR constant and indiscriminate insults are somewhat 'misguided' and 'irksome' to those who are your intellectual equal or better....even if they aren't YOUR type of intellect (for which I am sure that they thank the fates daily!hehehe)?
Oh, and mate....mate.....mate.....since you attempted to quote rpenner 'as supporting argument', perhaps you may be interested in my reply to him just now....and especially note how that quoted passage and rpenner's comments actually assisted in pointing out to YOU the error of your ways rather than supported your vendetta against all you despise for not being 'educated' to YOUR pathetic state of 'educated ignorance and intellectual bigotry'.
PS: Oh, and don't take any 'wooden orthodoxies', mate! hehehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2007, 06:49 PM)
Hi Euler...maaaate!
That term covers many subtleties, mate!
We Aussies have elevated its use to a fine art, hehehe.
Anyway, it's a little 'precious' of you to find that 'irksome', isn't it, matey mate mate?
I mean, don't you think YOUR constant and indiscriminate insults are somewhat 'misguided' and 'irksome' to those who are your intellectual equal or better....even if they aren't YOUR type of intellect (for which I am sure that they thank the fates daily!hehehe)?
Oh, and mate....mate.....mate.....since you attempted to quote rpenner 'as supporting argument', perhaps you may be interested in my reply to him just now....and especially note how that quoted passage and rpenner's comments actually assisted in pointing out to YOU the error of your ways rather than supported your vendetta against all you despise for not being 'educated' to YOUR pathetic state of educated ignorance'.
PS: Oh, and don't take any 'wooden orthodoxies', mate! hehehe.
RC.
.
Very mature post.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 14 2007, 12:56 AM)
Very mature post
Thanks Wulf!
I'm trying to reach the level of maturity and education of Euler. It seems that mature and edifying replies don't hit the mark where his intellect is concerned.
Does it annoy you that I emulate his approach to debating.
Oh dear, now WHY do you think that is NOT annoying when Euler does it, I wonder?
Anyhow, did you catch my reply to rpenner regarding the Euler pathos?
Why don't you quote that too, mate?
It's not because it contains 'an inconvenient truth' some may want to 'edit and forget' out of the 'quoting' record, is it?
Cheers all...and play nice!
Never forget: "What goes around, comes around"!hehehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 13 2007, 07:03 PM)
Thanks Wulf!
Did you catch my reply to rpenner regarding the Euler pathos?
Why don't you quote that too, mate?
It's not because it contains 'an inconvenient truth' you don't want to 'edit' out of your 'quoting' record, is it?
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Actually, you didn't grasp the argument that was being made. Rpenner's post in no way supported your claims.
Your point was not proven, in fact all you managed to do was reveal your own ignorance. On top of that you provided us with a vivid example of what lies beneath that mask of false courtesy you have been hiding behind.
Thank you for providing us for such a revealing look into the psyche of the common crank, I don't think Euler could have found a better example.
QUOTE (Wulf+Jul 14 2007, 01:11 AM)
Actually, you didn't grasp the argument that was being made. Rpenner's post in no way supported your claims.
Your point was not proven, in fact all you managed to do was reveal your own ignorance. On top of that you provided us with a vivid example of what lies beneath that mask of false courtesy you have been hiding behind.
Thank you for providing us for such a revealing look into the psyche of the common crank, I don't think Euler could have found a better example.
You think, mate?
Now why doesn't that surprise me.
You wouldn't be the first to ignore the obvious because it is 'inconvenient'.
Read it again....and then justify your 'knee-jerk' and unsubstantiated 'quickly reasoned' assessment.
Try it; you'll like it!hehehe.
PS: I fear you missed the IRONY in my 'immature' reply to Euler, hehehe. That's what can happen when you 'reason quickly' but miss the point altogether, mate! Take it slow and steady....life isn't the exam room where you are limited to 5 minutes to arrive at your 'comprehension/answer', heh!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Your point was not proven, in fact all you managed to do was reveal your own ignorance. On top of that you provided us with a vivid example of what lies beneath that mask of false courtesy you have been hiding behind.
Thank you for providing us for such a revealing look into the psyche of the common crank, I don't think Euler could have found a better example.
You think, mate?
Now why doesn't that surprise me.
You wouldn't be the first to ignore the obvious because it is 'inconvenient'.
Read it again....and then justify your 'knee-jerk' and unsubstantiated 'quickly reasoned' assessment.
Try it; you'll like it!hehehe.
PS: I fear you missed the IRONY in my 'immature' reply to Euler, hehehe. That's what can happen when you 'reason quickly' but miss the point altogether, mate! Take it slow and steady....life isn't the exam room where you are limited to 5 minutes to arrive at your 'comprehension/answer', heh!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
I've raise dthis point in another thread, and I'm going to rasie it here as well.
How can you simply say that something is wrong when you've FAILED to explore EVERY avenue of possible rightness?
Isn't that the complete opposite of what you, Eric, and others are espousing?
Doesn't that make you a teeny bit hypocritical?
The other thing is.
SO bleeding WHAT if Faraday had no (or allegedly no) formal education in physics.
The unasnwered questions then were different from the unasnwered questions now, the required different tools.
And by no means is my intent to downplay what he did, before enybody starts jumping on that bleeding bandwagon.
How can you simply say that something is wrong when you've FAILED to explore EVERY avenue of possible rightness?
Isn't that the complete opposite of what you, Eric, and others are espousing?
Doesn't that make you a teeny bit hypocritical?
The other thing is.
SO bleeding WHAT if Faraday had no (or allegedly no) formal education in physics.
The unasnwered questions then were different from the unasnwered questions now, the required different tools.
And by no means is my intent to downplay what he did, before enybody starts jumping on that bleeding bandwagon.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 14 2007, 02:04 AM)
I've raise dthis point in another thread, and I'm going to rasie it here as well.
How can you simply say that something is wrong when you've FAILED to explore EVERY avenue of possible rightness?
Isn't that the complete opposite of what you, Eric, and others are espousing?
Doesn't that make you a teeny bit hypocritical?
The other thing is.
SO bleeding WHAT if Faraday had no (or allegedly no) formal education in physics.
The unasnwered questions then were different from the unasnwered questions now, the required different tools.
And by no means is my intent to downplay what he did, before enybody starts jumping on that bleeding bandwagon.
Hi Trip!
True, it WOULD make us hypocritical....IF that's ALL that 'those cranks' ARE doing.
But in SOME cases (discriminate, remember?) it's not ALL they are doing, is it?
SOME are presenting alternative and sometimes original apsects/avenues which the status quo has NOT pursued on its own.
And as you admit, the status quo is NOT complete.
So all and sundry have a DUTY as well as RIGHT to question 'as best they can'....no matter how absurd they may seem to you and others.
Because AMONGST THOSE questioners it is STATISTICALLY PROBABLE that someone WILL give YOU and your colleagues what you are 'missing' NOW.
And SOME cranks HAVE 'put up or shut up'. So they aren't all sitting on the sidelines and crying foul without any contribuition of their own.
Or is it your contention that NO-ONE except qualified and 'acceptable' physicists/mathematicians will arrive at some non-mathematical insight that may advance the status quo?
If so, then it is you that may be the hypocrite, not 'the cranks'....for 'the cranks' are doing what 'the cranks' HAVE ALWAYS DONE....and sometimes with GREAT OUTCOMES ALL ROUND...in many fields.
While it behoves the 'professionals' to not be too complacent that 'some crank' will NOT show them the way forward in some important way.
Pity the cranks, because their 'job' is for the most part unsung and unappreciated etc UNTIL some of them are 'inducted' into the 'professions' because of some contribution which AFTER THE EVENT 'qualifies' them as 'no longer cranks' and so 'acceptable' to the 'profession' in volved.
Some 'cranks' have even received HONORARY DEGREES FROM PRESTIGIOUS UNIVERSITIES/INSTITUTIONS even thogh they've never BEEN inside a university in their lives!
Tolerance ON BOTH SIDES. That is the key to progress.
Keep up the good work...and don't despair. Some crank/amateur or other will be there when you need them, mate!hehehe.
RC.
.
How can you simply say that something is wrong when you've FAILED to explore EVERY avenue of possible rightness?
Isn't that the complete opposite of what you, Eric, and others are espousing?
Doesn't that make you a teeny bit hypocritical?
The other thing is.
SO bleeding WHAT if Faraday had no (or allegedly no) formal education in physics.
The unasnwered questions then were different from the unasnwered questions now, the required different tools.
And by no means is my intent to downplay what he did, before enybody starts jumping on that bleeding bandwagon.
Hi Trip!
True, it WOULD make us hypocritical....IF that's ALL that 'those cranks' ARE doing.
But in SOME cases (discriminate, remember?) it's not ALL they are doing, is it?
SOME are presenting alternative and sometimes original apsects/avenues which the status quo has NOT pursued on its own.
And as you admit, the status quo is NOT complete.
So all and sundry have a DUTY as well as RIGHT to question 'as best they can'....no matter how absurd they may seem to you and others.
Because AMONGST THOSE questioners it is STATISTICALLY PROBABLE that someone WILL give YOU and your colleagues what you are 'missing' NOW.
And SOME cranks HAVE 'put up or shut up'. So they aren't all sitting on the sidelines and crying foul without any contribuition of their own.
Or is it your contention that NO-ONE except qualified and 'acceptable' physicists/mathematicians will arrive at some non-mathematical insight that may advance the status quo?
If so, then it is you that may be the hypocrite, not 'the cranks'....for 'the cranks' are doing what 'the cranks' HAVE ALWAYS DONE....and sometimes with GREAT OUTCOMES ALL ROUND...in many fields.
While it behoves the 'professionals' to not be too complacent that 'some crank' will NOT show them the way forward in some important way.
Pity the cranks, because their 'job' is for the most part unsung and unappreciated etc UNTIL some of them are 'inducted' into the 'professions' because of some contribution which AFTER THE EVENT 'qualifies' them as 'no longer cranks' and so 'acceptable' to the 'profession' in volved.
Some 'cranks' have even received HONORARY DEGREES FROM PRESTIGIOUS UNIVERSITIES/INSTITUTIONS even thogh they've never BEEN inside a university in their lives!
Tolerance ON BOTH SIDES. That is the key to progress.
Keep up the good work...and don't despair. Some crank/amateur or other will be there when you need them, mate!hehehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 14 2007, 02:35 PM)
Hi Trip!
True, it WOULD make us hypocritical....
Are you admitting that you're a crank?
Or are you saying that everybody who does not have a degree but expresses an opinion is a crank?
Because if the second point is what you're saying, then you have truely deluded yourself.
Nobody in the position of actually having spent the money, time, blood, sweat, and tears to get a degree is saying that EVERYBODY who expresses an opinion WITHOUT a degree is a crank.
In fact, if that is what you think is being said, then you have managed to completely MISS the ENTIRE point of this thread.
Lalbatross, Myself, Alpha, Alphanumeric, Euler, Wulf, and everybody else I have failed to name, are saying that SOME of these people are cranks. Cranks have a variety of personality traits (Zephir, in my opinion, is a prime example), and make specific kinds of posts, and keep hammering away at the same points, even though those points might be completely mechanisticaly, qualitatively, and quantitativly explicable within mainstream physics.
People who have genuine questions, or genuine ideas based around genuine misconceptions are not cranks, because often they are willing to listen to reasonable explanation. It's the lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanation, and continuing to flog the same dead horse, and tilt at the same windmills that is one of the things that DEFINES a crank.
True, it WOULD make us hypocritical....
Are you admitting that you're a crank?
Or are you saying that everybody who does not have a degree but expresses an opinion is a crank?
Because if the second point is what you're saying, then you have truely deluded yourself.
Nobody in the position of actually having spent the money, time, blood, sweat, and tears to get a degree is saying that EVERYBODY who expresses an opinion WITHOUT a degree is a crank.
In fact, if that is what you think is being said, then you have managed to completely MISS the ENTIRE point of this thread.
Lalbatross, Myself, Alpha, Alphanumeric, Euler, Wulf, and everybody else I have failed to name, are saying that SOME of these people are cranks. Cranks have a variety of personality traits (Zephir, in my opinion, is a prime example), and make specific kinds of posts, and keep hammering away at the same points, even though those points might be completely mechanisticaly, qualitatively, and quantitativly explicable within mainstream physics.
People who have genuine questions, or genuine ideas based around genuine misconceptions are not cranks, because often they are willing to listen to reasonable explanation. It's the lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanation, and continuing to flog the same dead horse, and tilt at the same windmills that is one of the things that DEFINES a crank.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 14 2007, 02:51 AM)
Are you admitting that you're a crank?
Or are you saying that everybody who does not have a degree but expresses an opinion is a crank?
Because if the second point is what you're saying, then you have truely deluded yourself.
Nobody in the position of actually having spent the money, time, blood, sweat, and tears to get a degree is saying that EVERYBODY who expresses an opinion WITHOUT a degree is a crank.
In fact, if that is what you think is being said, then you have managed to completely MISS the ENTIRE point of this thread.
Lalbatross, Myself, Alpha, Alphanumeric, Euler, Wulf, and everybody else I have failed to name, are saying that SOME of these people are cranks. Cranks have a variety of personality traits (Zephir, in my opinion, is a prime example), and make specific kinds of posts, and keep hammering away at the same points, even though those points might be completely mechanisticaly, qualitatively, and quantitativly explicable within mainstream physics.
People who have genuine questions, or genuine ideas based around genuine misconceptions are not cranks, because often they are willing to listen to reasonable explanation. It's the lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanation, and continuing to flog the same dead horse, and tilt at the same windmills that is one of the things that DEFINES a crank.
Hi Trip!
I added something further to this in reply to your 'testing Zephir' post.....
Hi Trip!
I answered the similar point you made in the 'cranks' thread, as follows....
I would now like to add that YOU ARE PERFECTLY RIGHT to deplore those that DO NOT want to give 'time' for the current mainstream approaches/endeavours to 'come to fruition'!
No argument from ME!hehehe.
However, who is to say what level of success towards COMPLETION will attend such 'fruition' as you intimate is imminent?
That's the whole 'sticking point' really, isn't it?
Some are confident that success is just around the corner in the the mainstream paths currently tread.
While some are NOT as sanguine about such 'fruition'....simply because the whole BASIS for all mainstream paths/outcomes is RELATIVE and 'abstractly desriptive' only.
Nowhere on the 'horizon' can be seen anything OTHER than just more 'refined' levels OF THE SAME STUFF that even experts cannot fully comprehend all of a piece.
That's where CONSTRUCTIVE AND PATIENT 'eccentrics/amateurs etc may come in handy.
USE THEM...don't just 'despise' them as inconsequential in every case.
Just as those 'cranks' SHOULD USE mainstream...and NOT just vaguely and unconstructively 'dismiss' and 'despise' it in turn without offering any alternative ways FORWARD.
That's where a 'complete' and 'non-relative' insight into the whole MECHANISMS set will give EVERYTHING that mainstream WILL achieve a CONTEXT that will allow 'concise' and 'consistent' and concrete' comprehension by ALL persons endowed with reasoning/comprehension not TOO out of the ordinary.
That is and was the goal of all great scientists and educators, no matter what field or level of 'standing' within or outside any particular 'profession' in that field.
Cheers Trip, all!
RC.
.
I hope that clarified my position better than a restrictive yes/no answer could have done to your opening question above.
Hehehe. It was a good try, mate! Really...it was, hehehe.
Let's just say that not all is necessarily what it seems...including all 'cranks', hehehe.
Thanks for your patience, Trip.
Cheers mate....and all the best to all of us....from every direction!
RC.
.
Or are you saying that everybody who does not have a degree but expresses an opinion is a crank?
Because if the second point is what you're saying, then you have truely deluded yourself.
Nobody in the position of actually having spent the money, time, blood, sweat, and tears to get a degree is saying that EVERYBODY who expresses an opinion WITHOUT a degree is a crank.
In fact, if that is what you think is being said, then you have managed to completely MISS the ENTIRE point of this thread.
Lalbatross, Myself, Alpha, Alphanumeric, Euler, Wulf, and everybody else I have failed to name, are saying that SOME of these people are cranks. Cranks have a variety of personality traits (Zephir, in my opinion, is a prime example), and make specific kinds of posts, and keep hammering away at the same points, even though those points might be completely mechanisticaly, qualitatively, and quantitativly explicable within mainstream physics.
People who have genuine questions, or genuine ideas based around genuine misconceptions are not cranks, because often they are willing to listen to reasonable explanation. It's the lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanation, and continuing to flog the same dead horse, and tilt at the same windmills that is one of the things that DEFINES a crank.
Hi Trip!
I added something further to this in reply to your 'testing Zephir' post.....
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 14 2007, 02:55 AM)
Hi Trip!
I answered the similar point you made in the 'cranks' thread, as follows....
I would now like to add that YOU ARE PERFECTLY RIGHT to deplore those that DO NOT want to give 'time' for the current mainstream approaches/endeavours to 'come to fruition'!
No argument from ME!hehehe.
However, who is to say what level of success towards COMPLETION will attend such 'fruition' as you intimate is imminent?
That's the whole 'sticking point' really, isn't it?
Some are confident that success is just around the corner in the the mainstream paths currently tread.
While some are NOT as sanguine about such 'fruition'....simply because the whole BASIS for all mainstream paths/outcomes is RELATIVE and 'abstractly desriptive' only.
Nowhere on the 'horizon' can be seen anything OTHER than just more 'refined' levels OF THE SAME STUFF that even experts cannot fully comprehend all of a piece.
That's where CONSTRUCTIVE AND PATIENT 'eccentrics/amateurs etc may come in handy.
USE THEM...don't just 'despise' them as inconsequential in every case.
Just as those 'cranks' SHOULD USE mainstream...and NOT just vaguely and unconstructively 'dismiss' and 'despise' it in turn without offering any alternative ways FORWARD.
That's where a 'complete' and 'non-relative' insight into the whole MECHANISMS set will give EVERYTHING that mainstream WILL achieve a CONTEXT that will allow 'concise' and 'consistent' and concrete' comprehension by ALL persons endowed with reasoning/comprehension not TOO out of the ordinary.
That is and was the goal of all great scientists and educators, no matter what field or level of 'standing' within or outside any particular 'profession' in that field.
Cheers Trip, all!
RC.
.
I hope that clarified my position better than a restrictive yes/no answer could have done to your opening question above.
Hehehe. It was a good try, mate! Really...it was, hehehe.
Let's just say that not all is necessarily what it seems...including all 'cranks', hehehe.
Thanks for your patience, Trip.
Cheers mate....and all the best to all of us....from every direction!
RC.
.
When an IF some crank comes up with a new idea (For example, some might consider the work of Burkhard Heim to fall into that category) THEN I might consider their idea, but having said that, as I have stated MANY times before.
I GAVE Zephir a chance, I gave him several chances.
I GAVE Tsolkas a Chance.
I GAVE Zanket a chance.
I have WASTED more of my time digging up papers to illustrate things to people who are so convinced of their own righteousness that they refuse to consider any other point of view, then perhaps doing any other single thing.
And you wonder why I (and others) get a teeny bit frustrated from time to time...
But, as I was saying, WHEN and IF some CRANK comes up with a NEW and PLAUSIBLE idea, then I might consider it.
But SO FAR, all I have seen is CRANKS endlessly RE-HASHING century old IDEAS with the SAME AD-HOC principles that they COMPLAIN LOUDLY about in mainstream science.
Unless you're going to seriously suggest that we should revisit the idea of Phlogiston, or move back to the four basic elements and a flat earth?
And it has NOT escaped my notice that you managed to side step at least ONE direct question in my previous post.
I GAVE Zephir a chance, I gave him several chances.
I GAVE Tsolkas a Chance.
I GAVE Zanket a chance.
I have WASTED more of my time digging up papers to illustrate things to people who are so convinced of their own righteousness that they refuse to consider any other point of view, then perhaps doing any other single thing.
And you wonder why I (and others) get a teeny bit frustrated from time to time...
But, as I was saying, WHEN and IF some CRANK comes up with a NEW and PLAUSIBLE idea, then I might consider it.
But SO FAR, all I have seen is CRANKS endlessly RE-HASHING century old IDEAS with the SAME AD-HOC principles that they COMPLAIN LOUDLY about in mainstream science.
Unless you're going to seriously suggest that we should revisit the idea of Phlogiston, or move back to the four basic elements and a flat earth?
And it has NOT escaped my notice that you managed to side step at least ONE direct question in my previous post.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 14 2007, 04:19 AM)
When an IF some crank comes up with a new idea (For example, some might consider the work of Burkhard Heim to fall into that category) THEN I might consider their idea, but having said that, as I have stated MANY times before.
I GAVE Zephir a chance, I gave him several chances.
I GAVE Tsolkas a Chance.
I GAVE Zanket a chance.
I have WASTED more of my time digging up papers to illustrate things to people who are so convinced of their own righteousness that they refuse to consider any other point of view, then perhaps doing any other single thing.
And you wonder why I (and others) get a teeny bit frustrated from time to time...
But, as I was saying, WHEN and IF some CRANK comes up with a NEW and PLAUSIBLE idea, then I might consider it.
But SO FAR, all I have seen is CRANKS endlessly RE-HASHING century old IDEAS with the SAME AD-HOC principles that they COMPLAIN LOUDLY about in mainstream science.
Unless you're going to seriously suggest that we should revisit the idea of Phlogiston, or move back to the four basic elements and a flat earth?
And it has NOT escaped my notice that you managed to side step at least ONE direct question in my previous post.
Hi Trip!
As I said in earlier posts, I applaud and appreciate your efforts to educate.
And it is for history to judge whether or not you actually 'wasted' your time on getting those references...who knows what subconsious impact you have made thereby? A pity if some of that impact is 'coloured' by the type of 'denigrating' attitude others have shown....on BOTH 'sides'.
As to you convincing yourself that you HAVE IN FACT given Zephir (in particular; I'm not as well acquainted with your exchanges with the others you mentioned) a 'totally fair hearing', I don't see where you can tenably claim to having done so in HIS case.
Let me explain this observation.
I have just shown recently where you and others seem to have CONSISTENTLY missed or dismissed out of hand the straightforward contention/implications of Zeph's AWT....in the CENTRAL matter of cascade/reverse-cascade 'inertial gradients' formation and 'energy flow/features' recursively arising/spreading/subsiding thereby (in spacetime or whatever).
I took the time and patience (and more importantly, had NO AXE TO GRIND or PARTICULAR BARROW TO PUSH) when I looked and LISTENED to what Zephir ACTUALLY says (albeit rather 'broken-english' and sometimes infuriatingly so in his turn of phrases!).
I then checked his claims for his model (albeit being inevitably as incomplete as the rest) against how many other models (including mainstream, both 'established' and 'on the horizon') are shaping up.
And to me, what he says/calims is OBVIOUS and perfectly plausible in theory AND observation MECHANISM-wise.
So I at least have NOT totally discounted the POSITIVES just because he infuriates me in some ways as he does you; nor do I IGNORE (whatever the source) such things that are contributing to a 'pattern' of development I can see 'coming', mainly because I am willing and prepared if necessary to take the time and trouble TO THE nTH DEGREE to endure all sorts of inconvenient and frustrating pains in order to gather from diverse, sources, both likely and unlikely.
And you must admit, after all this time and money on mainstream efforts, there is SOME justification for SOME people NOT in that mainstream to be a little 'restive' about progress towards a mechanism-explaining model/comprehension.
Just a little bit?
I repeat, I sympathise and agree with much of what you are conveying; but I think deep down you also sympathise a litte bit with what some others are conveying.
Let's leave it at that, mate. All the best for your future career!
RC.
.
I GAVE Zephir a chance, I gave him several chances.
I GAVE Tsolkas a Chance.
I GAVE Zanket a chance.
I have WASTED more of my time digging up papers to illustrate things to people who are so convinced of their own righteousness that they refuse to consider any other point of view, then perhaps doing any other single thing.
And you wonder why I (and others) get a teeny bit frustrated from time to time...
But, as I was saying, WHEN and IF some CRANK comes up with a NEW and PLAUSIBLE idea, then I might consider it.
But SO FAR, all I have seen is CRANKS endlessly RE-HASHING century old IDEAS with the SAME AD-HOC principles that they COMPLAIN LOUDLY about in mainstream science.
Unless you're going to seriously suggest that we should revisit the idea of Phlogiston, or move back to the four basic elements and a flat earth?
And it has NOT escaped my notice that you managed to side step at least ONE direct question in my previous post.
Hi Trip!
As I said in earlier posts, I applaud and appreciate your efforts to educate.
And it is for history to judge whether or not you actually 'wasted' your time on getting those references...who knows what subconsious impact you have made thereby? A pity if some of that impact is 'coloured' by the type of 'denigrating' attitude others have shown....on BOTH 'sides'.
As to you convincing yourself that you HAVE IN FACT given Zephir (in particular; I'm not as well acquainted with your exchanges with the others you mentioned) a 'totally fair hearing', I don't see where you can tenably claim to having done so in HIS case.
Let me explain this observation.
I have just shown recently where you and others seem to have CONSISTENTLY missed or dismissed out of hand the straightforward contention/implications of Zeph's AWT....in the CENTRAL matter of cascade/reverse-cascade 'inertial gradients' formation and 'energy flow/features' recursively arising/spreading/subsiding thereby (in spacetime or whatever).
I took the time and patience (and more importantly, had NO AXE TO GRIND or PARTICULAR BARROW TO PUSH) when I looked and LISTENED to what Zephir ACTUALLY says (albeit rather 'broken-english' and sometimes infuriatingly so in his turn of phrases!).
I then checked his claims for his model (albeit being inevitably as incomplete as the rest) against how many other models (including mainstream, both 'established' and 'on the horizon') are shaping up.
And to me, what he says/calims is OBVIOUS and perfectly plausible in theory AND observation MECHANISM-wise.
So I at least have NOT totally discounted the POSITIVES just because he infuriates me in some ways as he does you; nor do I IGNORE (whatever the source) such things that are contributing to a 'pattern' of development I can see 'coming', mainly because I am willing and prepared if necessary to take the time and trouble TO THE nTH DEGREE to endure all sorts of inconvenient and frustrating pains in order to gather from diverse, sources, both likely and unlikely.
And you must admit, after all this time and money on mainstream efforts, there is SOME justification for SOME people NOT in that mainstream to be a little 'restive' about progress towards a mechanism-explaining model/comprehension.
Just a little bit?
I repeat, I sympathise and agree with much of what you are conveying; but I think deep down you also sympathise a litte bit with what some others are conveying.
Let's leave it at that, mate. All the best for your future career!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 14 2007, 05:51 AM)
Cranks have a variety of personality traits... and make specific kinds of posts, and keep hammering away at the same points, even though those points might be completely mechanistically, qualitatively, and quantitatively explicable within mainstream physics.
The only problem is, the mainstream physics requires a lotta postulates and even higher number of distinct mutually inconsistent theories for such "explanation". And we shouldn't ignore the fact, even the consistent qualitative explanation/interpretation is missing for many things. (for example the relativistic Doppler shift, twins paradox, superconductivity, quantum wave, light speed invariance, spin symmetry, Lorentz transform and contraction, abelian and non-abelian transforms, electromagnetic field spreading, charge and electroweak interaction, inflation, space-time expansion, dimensions, Lagrangian and compactification, renormalization, particle generations, , birefringence of vacuum, imaginary and/or multiple time concept, double slit experiment and deBroglie wave, quantum entanglement, Higgs mechanism, motion in the gravitational field, Lie group and string net liquid concept, quarks, neutrinos, electron and proton, gravitons, photons, accretion radiation, cp-symmetry violation and/or quasars formation and black hole interior and Universe generations).
This approach gives the mainstream physics a character of somewhat superficial science - I mean a sort of botanic, which is just describing the different plants from many different perspectives without even attempting to formulate some central philosophy based on logical understanding. Furthermore it's strongly biased in its obstinate refusal/ignorance of inertial Aether concept, while replacing it by many other dogmas.
After all, even the mainstream physicists were often rather strange, autistic people, for example nobody of us would be really happy, if he would required to share college room with Newton, Goedel or Einstein.
The only problem is, the mainstream physics requires a lotta postulates and even higher number of distinct mutually inconsistent theories for such "explanation". And we shouldn't ignore the fact, even the consistent qualitative explanation/interpretation is missing for many things. (for example the relativistic Doppler shift, twins paradox, superconductivity, quantum wave, light speed invariance, spin symmetry, Lorentz transform and contraction, abelian and non-abelian transforms, electromagnetic field spreading, charge and electroweak interaction, inflation, space-time expansion, dimensions, Lagrangian and compactification, renormalization, particle generations, , birefringence of vacuum, imaginary and/or multiple time concept, double slit experiment and deBroglie wave, quantum entanglement, Higgs mechanism, motion in the gravitational field, Lie group and string net liquid concept, quarks, neutrinos, electron and proton, gravitons, photons, accretion radiation, cp-symmetry violation and/or quasars formation and black hole interior and Universe generations).
This approach gives the mainstream physics a character of somewhat superficial science - I mean a sort of botanic, which is just describing the different plants from many different perspectives without even attempting to formulate some central philosophy based on logical understanding. Furthermore it's strongly biased in its obstinate refusal/ignorance of inertial Aether concept, while replacing it by many other dogmas.
After all, even the mainstream physicists were often rather strange, autistic people, for example nobody of us would be really happy, if he would required to share college room with Newton, Goedel or Einstein.
QUOTE (Reality Check+Jul 14 2007, 05:51 AM)
..I have just shown recently where you and others seem to have CONSISTENTLY missed or dismissed out of hand the straightforward contention/implications of Zeph's AWT.... I looked and LISTENED to what Zephir ACTUALLY says ...and to me, what he says/claims is OBVIOUS and perfectly plausible in theory AND observation MECHANISM-wise....
Well, if somebody, at least a single person understands the AWT, it cannot be a complete BS, because it can spread through inertial environment of human consciousness. Of course, these humans must be motivated in finding of such central theory to by able comprehend it. Many brilliant specialists in the science aren't very interested about some central philosophy, in fact - simply because they're afraiding, such philosophy can violate their own specialization.
By my understanding, the AWT has postulated a new central dogma of contemporary physics (an analogy of the evolutionary theory in biology), i.e. the understanding, every observable reality is inertia based. While such finding appears a pretty universal (at least for me, at this moment), the another logical question should sound:
What the heck all this means?
Because by AWT every dogma is just a part a more general duality or even multiplicity. Can be such multiplicity non-inertial, i.e. completely abstract? If yes, by which mean?
We should realize, whole the math is based on such logic and the logic is based on the way, by which neural signals are interfering in our brain and these signals are just adapted to the laws of observable reality. Is the understanding and/or the whole logic restricted just to the inertia based artifacts?
Well, if somebody, at least a single person understands the AWT, it cannot be a complete BS, because it can spread through inertial environment of human consciousness. Of course, these humans must be motivated in finding of such central theory to by able comprehend it. Many brilliant specialists in the science aren't very interested about some central philosophy, in fact - simply because they're afraiding, such philosophy can violate their own specialization.
By my understanding, the AWT has postulated a new central dogma of contemporary physics (an analogy of the evolutionary theory in biology), i.e. the understanding, every observable reality is inertia based. While such finding appears a pretty universal (at least for me, at this moment), the another logical question should sound:
What the heck all this means?
Because by AWT every dogma is just a part a more general duality or even multiplicity. Can be such multiplicity non-inertial, i.e. completely abstract? If yes, by which mean?
We should realize, whole the math is based on such logic and the logic is based on the way, by which neural signals are interfering in our brain and these signals are just adapted to the laws of observable reality. Is the understanding and/or the whole logic restricted just to the inertia based artifacts?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 09:44 AM)
The only problem is, the mainstream physics requires a lotta postulates and even higher number of distinct mutually inconsistent theories for such "explanation". And we shouldn't ignore the fact, even the consistent qualitative explanation/interpretation is missing for many things. (for example the relativistic Doppler shift, twins paradox, superconductivity, quantum wave, light speed invariance, spin symmetry, Lorentz transform and contraction, abelian and non-abelian transforms, electromagnetic field spreading, charge and electroweak interaction, inflation, space-time expansion, dimensions, Lagrangian and compactification, renormalization, particle generations, , birefringence of vacuum, imaginary and/or multiple time concept, double slit experiment and deBroglie wave, quantum entanglement, Higgs mechanism, motion in the gravitational field, Lie group and string net liquid concept, quarks, neutrinos, electron and proton, gravitons, photons, accretion radiation, cp-symmetry violation and/or quasars formation and black hole interior and Universe generations).
What Zephir fails to realise, because he knows nothing about any of the things he's just listed, is that those things are not, in many cases, mutually exclusive. He lists things like "Doppler shift" and "twin paradox" (which is not a paradox in fact). Both of those are completely consistent with one another and are parts of the same theory.
Then things like 'electroweak interactions', 'abelian' and 'nonabelian'. No doubt Zephir hasn't got the first clue about the specifics of those things, since he knows no maths at all, but electroweak theory is a consistent combination of both abelian and non-abelian group symmetries which explains photons, W's and Z interactions to very high accuracy. Of course we could compare it to AWT but Zephir has no working models.
All of the things Zephir lists are things he has no clue about when it comes to how mainstream physics describes such systems and because of that he thinks his ignorance is the result of a failure of mainstream physics. The fact he can't understand so much of those things is the result of his inability and unwillingness to learn. Mainstream physicists have excellent conceptual and mathematical understanding of all those things listed.
The rest of his post is nothing but lies and BS, desperate to avoid giving any actual physics.
What Zephir fails to realise, because he knows nothing about any of the things he's just listed, is that those things are not, in many cases, mutually exclusive. He lists things like "Doppler shift" and "twin paradox" (which is not a paradox in fact). Both of those are completely consistent with one another and are parts of the same theory.
Then things like 'electroweak interactions', 'abelian' and 'nonabelian'. No doubt Zephir hasn't got the first clue about the specifics of those things, since he knows no maths at all, but electroweak theory is a consistent combination of both abelian and non-abelian group symmetries which explains photons, W's and Z interactions to very high accuracy. Of course we could compare it to AWT but Zephir has no working models.
All of the things Zephir lists are things he has no clue about when it comes to how mainstream physics describes such systems and because of that he thinks his ignorance is the result of a failure of mainstream physics. The fact he can't understand so much of those things is the result of his inability and unwillingness to learn. Mainstream physicists have excellent conceptual and mathematical understanding of all those things listed.
The rest of his post is nothing but lies and BS, desperate to avoid giving any actual physics.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 14 2007, 01:49 AM)
Hi Euler...maaaate!
That term covers many subtleties, mate!
We Aussies have elevated its use to a fine art, hehehe.
Anyway, it's a little 'precious' of you to find that 'irksome', isn't it, matey mate mate?
This really doesn't help you project a high intellectual standpoint. In fact, it seems to just reinforce the fact that you don't seem to be very bright.
That term covers many subtleties, mate!
We Aussies have elevated its use to a fine art, hehehe.
Anyway, it's a little 'precious' of you to find that 'irksome', isn't it, matey mate mate?
This really doesn't help you project a high intellectual standpoint. In fact, it seems to just reinforce the fact that you don't seem to be very bright.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 14 2007, 01:49 AM)
I mean, don't you think YOUR constant and indiscriminate insults are somewhat 'misguided' and 'irksome' to those who are your intellectual equal or better....even if they aren't YOUR type of intellect (for which I am sure that they thank the fates daily!hehehe)?
Now at least contemplate sparking off a few neurons before responding - otherwise it's like you're doing all the work for me, and that's no fun. I wouldn't call people like you idiots, if I didn't think you were very much lacking the brain dept. The possibility of you people having an intellect to speak of, on any level, is slim-to-none.
Now at least contemplate sparking off a few neurons before responding - otherwise it's like you're doing all the work for me, and that's no fun. I wouldn't call people like you idiots, if I didn't think you were very much lacking the brain dept. The possibility of you people having an intellect to speak of, on any level, is slim-to-none.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 14 2007, 01:49 AM)
Oh, and mate....mate.....mate.....since you attempted to quote rpenner 'as supporting argument', perhaps you may be interested in my reply to him just now....and especially note how that quoted passage and rpenner's comments actually assisted in pointing out to YOU the error of your ways rather than supported your vendetta against all you despise for not being 'educated' to YOUR pathetic state of 'educated ignorance and intellectual bigotry'.
As has been pointed out to you several times since: rpenner's post actually supports what I was saying. However, you're either too stupid to realise this, or too determined to cling on to something you hope would support your standpoint. Neither does you well.
All you've managed to do in your last few child-like responses, is cement down what many people probably already thought of you. What's sad, is that there are thousands of people, just like you, who have decided that it would be nice to play pretend physics on the internet. This medium gives you the opportunity to spout rubbish without much question, allows you to read a wiki article so you can pretend to know about the subject, stroke each others egos by talking about your own "theories"... the list goes on. I think what a lot of you don't realise, is quite how common idiots like yourselves are: there are people the world over spouting rubbish on a daily basis, sending letters to leading academics, proclaiming on the internet to be doing something amazing and a host of other silly things.
What this thread was an attempt at, was to find the underlying reason why people such as yourself would prefer to be held in such a regard. Instead of making the effort to learn (even together!) the basics of physics, so that in time you can actually speak about the subject with some form of competency.
As has been pointed out to you several times since: rpenner's post actually supports what I was saying. However, you're either too stupid to realise this, or too determined to cling on to something you hope would support your standpoint. Neither does you well.
All you've managed to do in your last few child-like responses, is cement down what many people probably already thought of you. What's sad, is that there are thousands of people, just like you, who have decided that it would be nice to play pretend physics on the internet. This medium gives you the opportunity to spout rubbish without much question, allows you to read a wiki article so you can pretend to know about the subject, stroke each others egos by talking about your own "theories"... the list goes on. I think what a lot of you don't realise, is quite how common idiots like yourselves are: there are people the world over spouting rubbish on a daily basis, sending letters to leading academics, proclaiming on the internet to be doing something amazing and a host of other silly things.
What this thread was an attempt at, was to find the underlying reason why people such as yourself would prefer to be held in such a regard. Instead of making the effort to learn (even together!) the basics of physics, so that in time you can actually speak about the subject with some form of competency.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 12:30 PM)
Of course we could compare it to AWT but Zephir has no working models.
The AWT is working on the fundamental logic very well, because I don't see any phenomena or even concept described by mainstream physics. which can violate it (prove me, if I'm wrong). If you want to compare the AWT theory with the another models, u should to solve the dense particle system or recursive wave equation by numeric way to achieve the reproducible results.
The AWT is working on the fundamental logic very well, because I don't see any phenomena or even concept described by mainstream physics. which can violate it (prove me, if I'm wrong). If you want to compare the AWT theory with the another models, u should to solve the dense particle system or recursive wave equation by numeric way to achieve the reproducible results.
QUOTE (Euler+Jul 14 2007, 12:30 PM)
I wouldn't call people like you idiots, if I didn't think you were very much lacking the brain dept.
I suppose, everybody can understand the introductory postulates of AWT, so if you want to derive something more insightful from it, you can start in doing this with your favorite math. Or are you even able to describe the behavior of dense particle system? This is classical math of classical physics system, no cheating is here.
f you're unable to describe such system with your own tools, why I should try to attempt it instead of you? I've no motivation in doing this, because I can understand its behavior even without any math at all.
I suppose, everybody can understand the introductory postulates of AWT, so if you want to derive something more insightful from it, you can start in doing this with your favorite math. Or are you even able to describe the behavior of dense particle system? This is classical math of classical physics system, no cheating is here.
f you're unable to describe such system with your own tools, why I should try to attempt it instead of you? I've no motivation in doing this, because I can understand its behavior even without any math at all.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 11:19 AM)
I suppose, everybody can understand the introductory postulates of AWT, so if you want to derive something more insightful from it, you can start in doing this with your favorite math.
Within minutes of me reading the "postulates" of Arm Waving Twaddle, I put forward a proof to show them mathematically inconsistent, which can be found here. But seeing as you don't understand them, you don't know how to refute them - so you carry on living a sorry existence by waving your arms around and pretending that your Arm Waving Twaddle is anything but exactly that.
However, I will admit that you do it with finesse - I noticed this morning that you used "Lie groups" in one of your posts. This is where you score points: it's you mentioning of topics completely beyond you, paired with your not-so-bright persona, that really gets a few of us laughing.
Within minutes of me reading the "postulates" of Arm Waving Twaddle, I put forward a proof to show them mathematically inconsistent, which can be found here. But seeing as you don't understand them, you don't know how to refute them - so you carry on living a sorry existence by waving your arms around and pretending that your Arm Waving Twaddle is anything but exactly that.
However, I will admit that you do it with finesse - I noticed this morning that you used "Lie groups" in one of your posts. This is where you score points: it's you mentioning of topics completely beyond you, paired with your not-so-bright persona, that really gets a few of us laughing.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 11:19 AM)
The AWT is working on the fundamental logic very well, because I don't see any phenomena or even concept described by mainstream physics. which can violate it (prove me, if I'm wrong).
As Euler mentions, he did it within minutes of you posting your claimed postulates of AWT, more than 6 months ago. You have not refuted them other than to say "AWT's logic goes beyond maths". That's a cop out and you know it.
Your claims have been proven incorrect many times. You can't predict, using AWT or even special relativity, measured time dilation effects. So not only does your theory not work, you don't know mainstream work. You claim AWT uses infinite dimensions and then post a picture of the E8 Lie group. The E8 Lie group is finite dimensional. Not to mention you know none of the maths of Lie groups.
Every step of the way you've been shown to lie, contradict and be ignorant. You just ignore all of these then say "If I'm wrong, prove it". We have, you just ignore them ALL.
Often because you don't understand the replies, replies even children understand.
As Euler mentions, he did it within minutes of you posting your claimed postulates of AWT, more than 6 months ago. You have not refuted them other than to say "AWT's logic goes beyond maths". That's a cop out and you know it.
Your claims have been proven incorrect many times. You can't predict, using AWT or even special relativity, measured time dilation effects. So not only does your theory not work, you don't know mainstream work. You claim AWT uses infinite dimensions and then post a picture of the E8 Lie group. The E8 Lie group is finite dimensional. Not to mention you know none of the maths of Lie groups.
Every step of the way you've been shown to lie, contradict and be ignorant. You just ignore all of these then say "If I'm wrong, prove it". We have, you just ignore them ALL.
Often because you don't understand the replies, replies even children understand.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jul 14 2007, 04:59 PM)
As to you convincing yourself that you HAVE IN FACT given Zephir (in particular; I'm not as well acquainted with your exchanges with the others you mentioned) a 'totally fair hearing', I don't see where you can tenably claim to having done so in HIS case.
So, what you're saying is that because I disagree with you, I must be wrong?
Hmmmmmmmmm........
Oh, and for the record? Againm how do you know what lengths i've gone to to try and understand Zephirs posts?
Oh wait, that's riiiiiight... YOU DON'T.
So, what you're saying is that because I disagree with you, I must be wrong?
Hmmmmmmmmm........
Oh, and for the record? Againm how do you know what lengths i've gone to to try and understand Zephirs posts?
Oh wait, that's riiiiiight... YOU DON'T.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 02:04 PM)
other than to say "AWT's logic goes beyond maths".
LOL, the AWT is classical physics theory, it cannot violate the math, until you prove, the Newtonian -physics violates the math..
How did you come into it at all?
LOL, the AWT is classical physics theory, it cannot violate the math, until you prove, the Newtonian -physics violates the math..
How did you come into it at all?QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 02:04 PM)
...you claim AWT uses infinite dimensions and then post a picture of the E8 Lie group...
Which picture do you mean, exactly? I never posted the picture of E8 Lie group here, because of complexity of that picture. By another words, you're lying.
Which picture do you mean, exactly? I never posted the picture of E8 Lie group here, because of complexity of that picture. By another words, you're lying.
QUOTE (Euler+Jul 14 2007, 02:04 PM)
... you used "Lie groups" in one of your posts. ... it's you mentioning of topics completely beyond you...
Do you consider, my explanation of physical meaning of Lie group is wrong? If not, why such topic is "completely beyond me", if I'm the first person on the world, who is proposing this interpretation?
Can you answer me by some logical way?
Do you consider, my explanation of physical meaning of Lie group is wrong? If not, why such topic is "completely beyond me", if I'm the first person on the world, who is proposing this interpretation?
Can you answer me by some logical way?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 12:12 PM)
LOL, the AWT is classical physics theory, it cannot violate the math, until you prove, the Newtonian -physics violates the math.. How did you come into it at all?
Then, by Euler's mathematical proof, AWT is wrong, by your own admission that it cannot violate 'the math'.
How did you come into it at all?Then, by Euler's mathematical proof, AWT is wrong, by your own admission that it cannot violate 'the math'.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 12:12 PM)
Which picture do you mean, exactly? I never posted the picture of E8 Lie group here, because of complexity of that picture. By another words, you're lying.
Sorry, the E4 group :
Precisely the same applies. You posted it here as if to say "Look, mainstream work backs up my claims" but the E4 group is finite dimensional, in contradiction to your claims.
Another example of your ignorance.
Precisely the same applies. You posted it here as if to say "Look, mainstream work backs up my claims" but the E4 group is finite dimensional, in contradiction to your claims.
Another example of your ignorance.
QUOTE (Zephir+)
The AWT is working on the fundamental logic very well, because I don't see any phenomena or even concept described by mainstream physics. which can violate it (prove me, if I'm wrong).
The inverse square law is a rather fundamental phenomenon that the AWT is unable to explain.
Best wishes - C2.
The inverse square law is a rather fundamental phenomenon that the AWT is unable to explain.
Best wishes - C2.
Zephir, why do you have to talk about AWT in seemingly every thread you post in? Do you not have the ability just to talk 'generally' about Physics? Do you not have the ability to discuss other possibilities outside the realm of AWT? 
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 14 2007, 02:20 PM)
The inverse square law is a rather fundamental phenomenon that the AWT is unable to explain.
The inverse square law follows from 3D geometry of energy spreading by the same way, like the inverse law follows from geometry of energy spreading at the 2D water surface.
The AWT explains the 3D geometry by the fact, just 3D hyperspheres will lead to the closest packing of hyperspheres, i.e. the lowest distance/volume ratio, which enables the most dense and intensive energy spreading through space. The rest follows from the 3D geometry of such space.
The inverse square law follows from 3D geometry of energy spreading by the same way, like the inverse law follows from geometry of energy spreading at the 2D water surface.
The AWT explains the 3D geometry by the fact, just 3D hyperspheres will lead to the closest packing of hyperspheres, i.e. the lowest distance/volume ratio, which enables the most dense and intensive energy spreading through space. The rest follows from the 3D geometry of such space.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 14 2007, 02:20 PM)
Do you not have the ability to discuss other possibilities outside the realm of AWT?
Isn't the AWT the most general theory of physics is far? You're not prohibited in doing this.
Isn't the AWT the most general theory of physics is far? You're not prohibited in doing this.
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+Jul 14 2007, 02:20 PM)
You posted it here as if to say "Look, mainstream work backs up my claims" but the E4 group is finite dimensional, in contradiction to your claims
Here's no apparent limit to the upper number of dimensions in AWT, until you prove, some directions are restricted. But from the analysis of the energy spreading through space follows, the dimensions higher then 12D are insignificant. But it doesn't means, they cannot exist. After all, we know even some 26 dimensional variants of string theory (the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation), so here's no apparent conceptual upper limit for the number of dimensions - the higher dimensions just manifests in very slightly way inside of our Universe generation.
Can you prove, the E8 Lie group is the highest possible example of geometry, composed from nested kissing spheres? This would be an interesting finding, indeed - it would mean, outer Universe generations cannot differ very much from our Universe generation, therefore some the assumptions of LQG are incorrect.
Here's no apparent limit to the upper number of dimensions in AWT, until you prove, some directions are restricted. But from the analysis of the energy spreading through space follows, the dimensions higher then 12D are insignificant. But it doesn't means, they cannot exist. After all, we know even some 26 dimensional variants of string theory (the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation), so here's no apparent conceptual upper limit for the number of dimensions - the higher dimensions just manifests in very slightly way inside of our Universe generation.
Can you prove, the E8 Lie group is the highest possible example of geometry, composed from nested kissing spheres? This would be an interesting finding, indeed - it would mean, outer Universe generations cannot differ very much from our Universe generation, therefore some the assumptions of LQG are incorrect.
Hi Zephir,
We have a charge Q1 at a distance r from Q2 and an inertial foamy Aether to describe the origin of the force between them .. the mechanism is????
Best wishes - C2.
Small = edit
We have a charge Q1 at a distance r from Q2 and an inertial foamy Aether to describe the origin of the force between them .. the mechanism is????
Best wishes - C2.
Small = edit
The other thing that maybe you can explain to me, RC, is why it is seemingly okay for Zephir to develop has hypothesis centered around an idea that is unexplainable within the Scope of AWT, but it's not okay for Mainstream Physics or Maths to use ideas or concepts that YOU consider to be similarly inexplicable?
To whit: Zephir claims (among other things) that AWT is the logical consequence of an inertial environment, but offers NO explanation for what Inertia is within AWT, and then goes on to denounce the mainstream because it can not (in his opinion) explain the charge of an electron, or the invariance of light speed (I know the invariance of light speed has a trivial (IMO) explanation).
What, PRECISELY, is the difference?
Can AWT explain the charge of the electron?
To whit: Zephir claims (among other things) that AWT is the logical consequence of an inertial environment, but offers NO explanation for what Inertia is within AWT, and then goes on to denounce the mainstream because it can not (in his opinion) explain the charge of an electron, or the invariance of light speed (I know the invariance of light speed has a trivial (IMO) explanation).
What, PRECISELY, is the difference?
Can AWT explain the charge of the electron?
QUOTE (Confused2+Jul 14 2007, 02:45 PM)
We have a charge Q1 at a distance r from Q2 and an inertial foamy Aether to describe the origin of the force between them .. the mechanism is????
I explained the origin of charge force for you already without any response from your side. The density of foam is the proportional to the energy density and the opposite charge motion compensate the energy density in the place between both these charges. This would result in the push force
I explained the origin of charge force for you already without any response from your side. The density of foam is the proportional to the energy density and the opposite charge motion compensate the energy density in the place between both these charges. This would result in the push force
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 14 2007, 02:45 PM)
Zephir claims (among other things) that AWT is the logical consequence of an inertial environment, but offers NO explanation for what Inertia is within AWT?
The inertia density of Aether in some place is the sum of energy density and mass density in this place. The inertia is the same concept, like at the classical mechanic, therefore the AWT explains the inertia Aether only by recursively nested way. You can imagine the lightweight gyroscope, which is very light, but it rotates by the high speed, therefore it's not so easy to manipulate it. You can imagine the lattice composed from network of such gyroscopes, which is behaving like dense elastic network
Unfortunately, this model still requires some insintric gyroscope at its "very beginning", until we prove, here's no true beginning of the Universe, i.e. the initial inertia density corresponds the density of the same Universe, just from different perspective.
The inertia density of Aether in some place is the sum of energy density and mass density in this place. The inertia is the same concept, like at the classical mechanic, therefore the AWT explains the inertia Aether only by recursively nested way. You can imagine the lightweight gyroscope, which is very light, but it rotates by the high speed, therefore it's not so easy to manipulate it. You can imagine the lattice composed from network of such gyroscopes, which is behaving like dense elastic network
Unfortunately, this model still requires some insintric gyroscope at its "very beginning", until we prove, here's no true beginning of the Universe, i.e. the initial inertia density corresponds the density of the same Universe, just from different perspective.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 11:53 PM)
I explained the origin of charge force for you already. The density of foam is the proportional to the energy density and the opposite charge motion compensate the energy density in the place between both these charges. This would result in the push force
Simple Yes, No answer Zephir.
Are you saying that all attractive forces are 'Push Forces'?
Simple Yes, No answer Zephir.
Are you saying that all attractive forces are 'Push Forces'?
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 14 2007, 02:55 PM)
Are you saying that all attractive forces are 'Push Forces'?
Nope, I'm just explaining the opposite charge mechanism. But the very same mechanism is able to explain the repulsive forces at the at the moment, these vortices will get too close together. This is the conceptual base of electroweak theory.
We can therefore imagine the Universe as a product of equilibrium of the attractive and repulsive forces, because in the system of mutually intersecting spheres every positive curvature is balanced by the negative one. From very general perspective the Universe has no outer or inner surface, being formed by super symmetric graviton foam. The graviton particles have no different curvature from inner and outer perspective: in such foam here's no difference between interior and exterior of bubbles, between the past and the future.
Nope, I'm just explaining the opposite charge mechanism. But the very same mechanism is able to explain the repulsive forces at the at the moment, these vortices will get too close together. This is the conceptual base of electroweak theory.
We can therefore imagine the Universe as a product of equilibrium of the attractive and repulsive forces, because in the system of mutually intersecting spheres every positive curvature is balanced by the negative one. From very general perspective the Universe has no outer or inner surface, being formed by super symmetric graviton foam. The graviton particles have no different curvature from inner and outer perspective: in such foam here's no difference between interior and exterior of bubbles, between the past and the future.
Hi Zephir,
You are probably aware of the way atmospheric pressure varies ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../barfor.html#c1 ) .. as we all know this (still) does not lead to anything like an inverse square law in the example you give.
Best wishes - C2.
You are probably aware of the way atmospheric pressure varies ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../barfor.html#c1 ) .. as we all know this (still) does not lead to anything like an inverse square law in the example you give.
Best wishes - C2.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 12:26 PM)
Here's no apparent limit to the upper number of dimensions in AWT, until you prove, some directions are restricted.
But you've proven nothing about dimensions in AWT.
But you've proven nothing about dimensions in AWT.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 12:26 PM)
But from the analysis of the energy spreading through space follows, the dimensions higher then 12D are insignificant.
An analysis which you fail to provide.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 12:26 PM)
But it doesn't means, they cannot exist. After all, we know even some 26 dimensional variants of string theory (the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation),
I know where it comes from, though I'm sure you don't.
Each of the 25 spacial dimensions are as important as the others. Your claim "12 are important, the rest aren't" implies a breaking of isotropy. Can you demonstrate as much?
Each of the 25 spacial dimensions are as important as the others. Your claim "12 are important, the rest aren't" implies a breaking of isotropy. Can you demonstrate as much?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 12:26 PM)
...2 pictures...
Neither of those pictures back up anything you just said, infact they would appear to contradict what you just said by implying an importance for 7 dimensions, with there being nothing special about 12.
You're just trying to hide your lies under irrelevence.
You're just trying to hide your lies under irrelevence.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 12:26 PM)
Can you prove, the E8 Lie group is the highest possible example of geometry, composed from nested kissing spheres?
I never said it was composed of nested kissing spheres, you did. Can you demonstrate your claim? I (or rather, particular mathematicians like Cartan) can prove that there's no E9 or E10 or E11 etc. Of course, it's not the highest dimensional Lie group, but it is the highest dimensional exceptional Lie group.
Try learning something about them first.
Try learning something about them first.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 12:26 PM)
This would be an interesting finding, indeed - it would mean, outer Universe generations cannot differ very much from our Universe generation, therefore some the assumptions of LQG are incorrect.
Irrelevent nonsense about topics you know nothing about.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 03:39 PM)
But you've proven nothing about dimensions in AWT
For example, from the surface/area analysis of hypersphere follows, the vacuum is formed by 6D hyperspheres, because it's the most stable/dense geometry for energy spreading.
For example, from the surface/area analysis of hypersphere follows, the vacuum is formed by 6D hyperspheres, because it's the most stable/dense geometry for energy spreading.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 03:39 PM)
implying an importance for 7 dimensions, with there being nothing special about 12
This is true, we can have for example 26 dimensional string theory. Such stance is simply saying: in the dense field of mutually repulsing particles the particle forming preferably 3D aggregates, 3D aggregates of 3D aggregates, until the 10 - 12 dimensions are reached (note that it corresponds just the three to four particle generations). After then the forces will become so weak, so they cannot keep these aggregates together, and the system reverts to its chaotic state. If you don't believe me, you can make the computer simulation with the repulsing particles for yourself.
This is true, we can have for example 26 dimensional string theory. Such stance is simply saying: in the dense field of mutually repulsing particles the particle forming preferably 3D aggregates, 3D aggregates of 3D aggregates, until the 10 - 12 dimensions are reached (note that it corresponds just the three to four particle generations). After then the forces will become so weak, so they cannot keep these aggregates together, and the system reverts to its chaotic state. If you don't believe me, you can make the computer simulation with the repulsing particles for yourself.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 03:39 PM)
Nope, it's a graphical representation of the structure of the group. It is not a physical layout. I never said Lie group was composed of nested kissing spheres, you did. Can you demonstrate your claim?
Why not to use Google...? You're just ignorant, even when concerning your favorite math.
Why not to use Google...? You're just ignorant, even when concerning your favorite math.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 11:26 AM)
Isn't the AWT the most general theory of physics is far? You're not prohibited in doing this.
It's just one theory among many, Zephir. Sure, it may be a wide theory, like relativity, but this does not mean that by talking about it, you are speaking generally about Physics.
For example; if I brought up black holes, and asked you to discuss them generally, you would instantly say "By AWT..." and then go on your spiel. Whereas if you were talking about them 'generally', then you would not mention any specific theory, such as AWT, but instead, you would simply talk about their function, features and simply 'spin' ideas about them. The ideas don't have to be AWT related, you can even spin ideas which are wholly contrary to AWT, just to see what people say to the idea.
I see way too many people getting 'obsessed' with their own little personal theory or theories. Like, take amrit for example, he went from a normal poster, into someone who repeatedly states the same line about 'time being the numerical order of things'. It gets boring when you repeat the same stuff again and again.
I simply advise to step outside of AWT, talk about anything but AWT.
All I really ask for, is a bit of moderation between general discussion and the whole AWT discussion. Why do you not simply keep AWT where it belongs - In it's own threads and in your signature/profile? Rather than 'hijacking' threads all the time..
It's just one theory among many, Zephir. Sure, it may be a wide theory, like relativity, but this does not mean that by talking about it, you are speaking generally about Physics.
For example; if I brought up black holes, and asked you to discuss them generally, you would instantly say "By AWT..." and then go on your spiel. Whereas if you were talking about them 'generally', then you would not mention any specific theory, such as AWT, but instead, you would simply talk about their function, features and simply 'spin' ideas about them. The ideas don't have to be AWT related, you can even spin ideas which are wholly contrary to AWT, just to see what people say to the idea.
I see way too many people getting 'obsessed' with their own little personal theory or theories. Like, take amrit for example, he went from a normal poster, into someone who repeatedly states the same line about 'time being the numerical order of things'. It gets boring when you repeat the same stuff again and again.
I simply advise to step outside of AWT, talk about anything but AWT.
All I really ask for, is a bit of moderation between general discussion and the whole AWT discussion. Why do you not simply keep AWT where it belongs - In it's own threads and in your signature/profile? Rather than 'hijacking' threads all the time..
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 14 2007, 04:05 PM)
It's just one theory among many, Zephir. Sure, it may be a wide theory, like relativity..
The AWT explains both the relativity, both quantum mechanics postulates by using of lower number of postulates.
The AWT explains both the relativity, both quantum mechanics postulates by using of lower number of postulates.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 14 2007, 04:05 PM)
...I simply advise to step outside of AWT, talk about anything but AWT...
Just try to advise, how to generalize the inertia concept of AWT and I'll stop to talk about it immediately... My personal motivation isn't to promote some particular theory here, but the most general and consistent concept possible, despite of its name.
Just try to advise, how to generalize the inertia concept of AWT and I'll stop to talk about it immediately...
My personal motivation isn't to promote some particular theory here, but the most general and consistent concept possible, despite of its name.QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 14 2007, 04:05 PM)
...Why do you not simply keep AWT where it belongs - In it's own threads...
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 01:45 PM)
For example, from the surface/area analysis of hypersphere follows, the vacuum is formed by 6D hyperspheres, because it's the most stable/dense geometry for energy spreading.
Yet your graph peaks just past 7. Rpenner and I have explained this to you many times, you obviously fail to understand.
Yet your graph peaks just past 7. Rpenner and I have explained this to you many times, you obviously fail to understand.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 01:45 PM)
This is true, we can have for example 26 dimensional string theory. Such stance is simply saying: in the dense field of mutually repulsing particles the particle forming preferably 3D aggregates, 3D aggregates of 3D aggregates, until the 10 - 12 dimensions are reached (note that it corresponds just the three to four particle generations). After then the forces will become so weak, so they cannot keep these aggregates together, and the system reverts to its chaotic state. If you don't believe me, you can make the computer simulation with the repulsing particles for yourself.
Translation : I'll wave my arms and produce no work and hopefully people will accept my ad hoc claim.
Lets see you create a computer program, with detailed explainations of the coding, input and output, which demonstrates your claims.
Lets see you create a computer program, with detailed explainations of the coding, input and output, which demonstrates your claims.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 01:45 PM)
Why not to use Google...? You're just ignorant, even when concerning your favorite math.
Suprise suprise, when you want to show you know something, Google comes out. When you want to lie and pretend you're right, suddenly you're unable to use Google.
The problem being, E8 sphere packing is in 8 dimensions. Not 6 or 3 or 9 or 27 or 12. It's in 8 dimensions. Once again, your own 'evidence' (or rather, other people's work you present to try to back you up) is against you.
I'm also in no doubt that you understand none of the maths in those links, you just Googled a simple phrase, in the hopes of finding a picture you like the look of. Once again, your ignorance gets in your way and shows you for the idiot you are.
The problem being, E8 sphere packing is in 8 dimensions. Not 6 or 3 or 9 or 27 or 12. It's in 8 dimensions. Once again, your own 'evidence' (or rather, other people's work you present to try to back you up) is against you.
I'm also in no doubt that you understand none of the maths in those links, you just Googled a simple phrase, in the hopes of finding a picture you like the look of. Once again, your ignorance gets in your way and shows you for the idiot you are.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 04:21 PM)
Yet your graph peaks just past 7. Rpenner and I have explained this to you many times
Because the particles of space aren't exact hypersphere's. This graph is therefore a considerably much more complex, when considering the more complex geometries.
Just try to advise, how to generalize the inertia concept of AWT and I'll stop to talk about it immediately...
I don't know enough about AWT, nor is it in my area of expertise, to talk about that topic. But I know that anything in Physics can be discussed generally, without talking about any one particular theory for it.
My personal motivation isn't to promote some particular theory here, but the most general and consistent concept possible, despite of its name.
So you aren't trying to promote AWT. You're only trying to promote AWT.
I get ya
This is exactly why I'm linking this thread in my every comment. You're not required to follow the discussion about AWT right here, don't you think? If you'll comment the AWT here, I'll reply you at the very same place.
Zephir, you post the links AND talk about AWT...
What I suggested, is that you only have the link in your signature, NOT that you mention it in every post you make. I mean, I don't mind it being in your signature, because I can turn signatures off
People wouldn't comment about AWT, if it wasn't for the fact that you literally hijack every thread and turn them into AWT discussions
Because the particles of space aren't exact hypersphere's. This graph is therefore a considerably much more complex, when considering the more complex geometries.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 04:21 PM)
The problem being, E8 sphere packing is in 8 dimensions. Not 6 or 3 or 9 or 27 or 12. It's in 8 dimensions
The same thing as above, the particles of space aren't exact spheres, they're similar to 2D and 1D membranes, the higher is the number of dimensions involved.
The same thing as above, the particles of space aren't exact spheres, they're similar to 2D and 1D membranes, the higher is the number of dimensions involved.
QUOTE (Zephir+)
Just try to advise, how to generalize the inertia concept of AWT and I'll stop to talk about it immediately...
I don't know enough about AWT, nor is it in my area of expertise, to talk about that topic. But I know that anything in Physics can be discussed generally, without talking about any one particular theory for it.
QUOTE (Zephir+)
My personal motivation isn't to promote some particular theory here, but the most general and consistent concept possible, despite of its name.
So you aren't trying to promote AWT. You're only trying to promote AWT.
I get ya
QUOTE (Zephir+)
This is exactly why I'm linking this thread in my every comment. You're not required to follow the discussion about AWT right here, don't you think? If you'll comment the AWT here, I'll reply you at the very same place.
Zephir, you post the links AND talk about AWT...
What I suggested, is that you only have the link in your signature, NOT that you mention it in every post you make. I mean, I don't mind it being in your signature, because I can turn signatures off
People wouldn't comment about AWT, if it wasn't for the fact that you literally hijack every thread and turn them into AWT discussions
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 02:39 PM)
Because the particles of space aren't exact hypersphere's. This graph is therefore a considerably much more complex, when considering the more complex geometries.
Suprise, suprise. As soon as someone points out your errors, you change your story!
Suprise, suprise. As soon as someone points out your errors, you change your story!
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 02:39 PM)
The same thing as above, the particles of space aren't exact spheres, they're similar to 2D and 1D membranes, the higher is the number of dimensions involved.
And there is it again!
As soon as you stop being vague and make a specific statement, you're shown to be wrong. Then you go back to being vague.
Lies, lies and more lies. You're so predictable.
As soon as you stop being vague and make a specific statement, you're shown to be wrong. Then you go back to being vague.
Lies, lies and more lies. You're so predictable.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 14 2007, 04:42 PM)
...I know that anything in Physics can be discussed generally, without talking about any one particular theory for it...
Everything from physics follows from relativity theory, from quantum mechanics or both. No more general approach exists so far, face it.
Everything from physics follows from relativity theory, from quantum mechanics or both. No more general approach exists so far, face it.
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 14 2007, 04:42 PM)
...so you aren't trying to promote AWT. You're only trying to promote AWT....
The AWT is just a most general approach to physics, which I'm able to comprehend. If you or everybody else will come with some even more general insight, which will help me to avoid the inertia concept, I'll forget the AWT immediately.
The AWT is just a most general approach to physics, which I'm able to comprehend. If you or everybody else will come with some even more general insight, which will help me to avoid the inertia concept, I'll forget the AWT immediately.
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+Jul 14 2007, 04:42 PM)
...As soon as someone points out your errors, you change your story!...
The AWT principle remains the very same. The math interpretation of AWT is based on approximation, so it will evolve like every other interpretation. In fact, all the above pictures are pretty old, in fact. For example, the picture on the left doesn't illustrate the fact, the 3D sphere packing is more dense, then the 2D or 3D hyperspheres. And the middle picture ignores the fact, the 2D hypersphere is more dense, then the 3D one, and that the 1D hypersphere is more dense, then the 2D one.
The AWT principle remains the very same. The math interpretation of AWT is based on approximation, so it will evolve like every other interpretation. In fact, all the above pictures are pretty old, in fact. For example, the picture on the left doesn't illustrate the fact, the 3D sphere packing is more dense, then the 2D or 3D hyperspheres. And the middle picture ignores the fact, the 2D hypersphere is more dense, then the 3D one, and that the 1D hypersphere is more dense, then the 2D one.
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+Jul 14 2007, 04:42 PM)
...Lies, lies and more lies. You're so predictable!...
LOL, the predictions of string theory vere corrected by so many times.. And not just extrapolations, but the fundamental postulates, too (M-theory, F-theory...). Does it mean, the string theory is based on lies? It is so unpredictable...
And don't forger, the AWT is still one man show theory, nobody from professional scientists will not help me with this on behalf theirs particular theories, which were developed first. While the string theory is developed by numbers of people, so we should expect some consistency in its development.
LOL, the predictions of string theory vere corrected by so many times..
And not just extrapolations, but the fundamental postulates, too (M-theory, F-theory...). Does it mean, the string theory is based on lies? It is so unpredictable... And don't forger, the AWT is still one man show theory, nobody from professional scientists will not help me with this on behalf theirs particular theories, which were developed first. While the string theory is developed by numbers of people, so we should expect some consistency in its development.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 02:47 PM)
The math interpretation of AWT is based on approximation, so it will evolve like every other interpretation. In fact, all the above pictures are pretty old, in fact. For example, the picture on the left doesn't illustrate the fact, the 3D sphere packing is more dense, then the 2D or 3D hyperspheres. And the middle picture ignores the fact, the 2D hypersphere is more dense, then the 3D one, and that the 1D hypersphere is more dense, then the 2D one.
In other words, you can ad hoc your completely unjustified and derivation-less claims to be whatever you like. It's unfalsifiable because whenever it's close to that, you just change your claims.
Your hypocrisy is tangable!
In other words, you can ad hoc your completely unjustified and derivation-less claims to be whatever you like. It's unfalsifiable because whenever it's close to that, you just change your claims.
Your hypocrisy is tangable!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 04:56 PM)
you can ad hoc your completely unjustified
While the predictions of string theory were all exactly derived from postulates, weren't they? Unfortunately, we have a number of string theories, which differs by theirs postulates and therefore even by their conclusions significantly. The picture bellow is illustrating, how the predictions of different string theories differs, concerning the validity of ISL. So I can say easily, all claims of string theories as a group are "completely unjustified" as well.
It's evident, until you have solid and robust philosophy, here's no way, how to restrict the number of theories, the number of their postulates as well - on the contrary. The tendency of mainstream science to add another, and another postulates, whenever it appears advantageous on behalf of some particular theory leads to the fuzziness of predictions, despite of every particular theory appears "exact" from formal perspective.
The AWT remains it's fundamental postulates unchanged, so I don't see any possibility, how to follow into fuzziness from such postulates. At this point we can see, even by complete qualitative way the AWT is able to derive many quantitative insights of other theories by rather reproducible way.
While the predictions of string theory were all exactly derived from postulates, weren't they? Unfortunately, we have a number of string theories, which differs by theirs postulates and therefore even by their conclusions significantly. The picture bellow is illustrating, how the predictions of different string theories differs, concerning the validity of ISL. So I can say easily, all claims of string theories as a group are "completely unjustified" as well.
It's evident, until you have solid and robust philosophy, here's no way, how to restrict the number of theories, the number of their postulates as well - on the contrary. The tendency of mainstream science to add another, and another postulates, whenever it appears advantageous on behalf of some particular theory leads to the fuzziness of predictions, despite of every particular theory appears "exact" from formal perspective.
The AWT remains it's fundamental postulates unchanged, so I don't see any possibility, how to follow into fuzziness from such postulates. At this point we can see, even by complete qualitative way the AWT is able to derive many quantitative insights of other theories by rather reproducible way.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 03:05 PM)
While the predictions of string theory were all exactly derived from postulates, weren't they? Unfortunately, we have a number of string theories, which differs by theirs postulates and therefore even by their conclusions significantly.
And this is another thing you've had explained to you many many times and which you should know anyway if you had any knowledge of mainstream physics. Unfortunately you have no clue about how to develop a theory of physics and so you see the work of others through eyes tainted by ignorance.
The fact bosonic string theory predicts 26 dimensions while supersymmetric string theory predicts 10 is not a contradiction, since noone thought purely bosonic string theory would be physical anyway. But you fail to appreciate such things.
And this is another thing you've had explained to you many many times and which you should know anyway if you had any knowledge of mainstream physics. Unfortunately you have no clue about how to develop a theory of physics and so you see the work of others through eyes tainted by ignorance.
The fact bosonic string theory predicts 26 dimensions while supersymmetric string theory predicts 10 is not a contradiction, since noone thought purely bosonic string theory would be physical anyway. But you fail to appreciate such things.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 03:05 PM)
The picture bellow is illustrating, how the predictions of different string theories differs, concerning the validity of ISL. So I can say easily, all claims of string theories as a group are "completely unjustified" as well.
Those labels do not represent different string theories, but different mechanisms within string theory. For instance, the dilaton in many string theories is a moduli. But then you don't know that because all you can do is parrot pictures other people have made on subject you know nothing about.
Besides, string theory derives it's results step by step from a short list of postulates. You ad hoc every single result.
Receiving a higher degree could be considered an accolade in education but an even better one is finding yourself able to apply the knowledge successfully.
Hi StevenA,
Yeah!, its called examination time in bid see what the induvidual student knows.
Cheers
Darren
Everything from physics follows from relativity theory, from quantum mechanics or both. No more general approach exists so far, face it.
It's called Relativity theory, because it's still a theory, it's not fact. I've stated this frequently to people, yet they always seem to have trouble comprehending the ramifications of such a statement. They refuse to consider the possibility that whilst relativity may seem to give the right answers, it may be fundamentally wrong as a theory for understanding the universe.
Don't ask me to list it's flaws, because I'm no relativity expert, but I know when something is labelled as a theory, there is the possibility that it therefore may be wrong.
Quantum mechanics is a more general area of physics, with a multitude of theories about it. One can speak generally, as well as spin ideas about it, without needing to talk specifically about any one theory.
The AWT is just a most general approach to physics, which I'm able to comprehend. If you or everybody else will come with some even more general insight, which will help me to avoid the inertia concept, I'll forget the AWT immediately.
AWT is (afaik) a theory with wide applications which one can claim applies to a wide area of Physics. Talking about said theory, is not talking generally about Physics, it's still talking about one theory.
To talk generally about Physics, you would need to try and not mention a single theory. But if you did, then you would have to speak unbiased about it, with what is known as 'academic disassociation'.
And what do you mean by 'the inertia concept'? I don't think it's in my region of expertise.
Besides, string theory derives it's results step by step from a short list of postulates. You ad hoc every single result.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 03:05 PM)
The AWT remains it's fundamental postulates unchanged, so I don't see any possibility, how to follow into fuzziness from such postulates. At this point we can see, even by complete qualitative way the AWT is able to derive many quantitative insights of other theories by rather reproducible way.
You derive nothing.
QUOTE (StevenA+Jul 13 2007, 04:31 PM)
Receiving a higher degree could be considered an accolade in education but an even better one is finding yourself able to apply the knowledge successfully.
Hi StevenA,
Yeah!, its called examination time in bid see what the induvidual student knows.
Cheers
Darren
QUOTE (Zephir+)
Everything from physics follows from relativity theory, from quantum mechanics or both. No more general approach exists so far, face it.
It's called Relativity theory, because it's still a theory, it's not fact. I've stated this frequently to people, yet they always seem to have trouble comprehending the ramifications of such a statement. They refuse to consider the possibility that whilst relativity may seem to give the right answers, it may be fundamentally wrong as a theory for understanding the universe.
Don't ask me to list it's flaws, because I'm no relativity expert, but I know when something is labelled as a theory, there is the possibility that it therefore may be wrong.
Quantum mechanics is a more general area of physics, with a multitude of theories about it. One can speak generally, as well as spin ideas about it, without needing to talk specifically about any one theory.
QUOTE (Zephir+)
The AWT is just a most general approach to physics, which I'm able to comprehend. If you or everybody else will come with some even more general insight, which will help me to avoid the inertia concept, I'll forget the AWT immediately.
AWT is (afaik) a theory with wide applications which one can claim applies to a wide area of Physics. Talking about said theory, is not talking generally about Physics, it's still talking about one theory.
To talk generally about Physics, you would need to try and not mention a single theory. But if you did, then you would have to speak unbiased about it, with what is known as 'academic disassociation'.
And what do you mean by 'the inertia concept'? I don't think it's in my region of expertise.
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 13 2007, 05:39 PM)
Note that I said I think mathematics is vital, but shouldn't be the only tool in the box.
Hi Farsight,
Care to tell us what other tools are available other than mathematics particularly when working on either string theory or GR and many other areas aswell.
Perhaps you mean modeling clay just help things along?
It's perfectly valid to develop a model before the mathematics is adequate.
I'm afraid you wrong here Farsight, first you need a working maths model to fit a particular application, good examples of this are the 2ODE's which fit a LCR circuit as in electricity or spring/mass damped oscillator or PID as in control theory, and the maths gives exquisite accuracy and predictability.
The 2ODE can be modeled in software by which I can make an ordinary 8 bit CPU do some mighty clever stuff. Now, here's the kicker, there are at least 5 2ODE's zero dimension, time only) available, i.e., the Hermite equation looks a good one to study if you want to understand the time independent Schroedinger equation.
Cheers for now
Darren
Hi Farsight,
Care to tell us what other tools are available other than mathematics particularly when working on either string theory or GR and many other areas aswell.
Perhaps you mean modeling clay just help things along?
QUOTE (Farsight+Jul 13 2007, 05:39 PM)
It's perfectly valid to develop a model before the mathematics is adequate.
I'm afraid you wrong here Farsight, first you need a working maths model to fit a particular application, good examples of this are the 2ODE's which fit a LCR circuit as in electricity or spring/mass damped oscillator or PID as in control theory, and the maths gives exquisite accuracy and predictability.
The 2ODE can be modeled in software by which I can make an ordinary 8 bit CPU do some mighty clever stuff. Now, here's the kicker, there are at least 5 2ODE's zero dimension, time only) available, i.e., the Hermite equation looks a good one to study if you want to understand the time independent Schroedinger equation.
Cheers for now
Darren
Zephir edited his post after I replied, so I'm responding to the added parts.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 02:47 PM)
LOL, the predictions of string theory vere corrected by so many times.. And not just extrapolations, but the fundamental postulates, too (M-theory, F-theory...). Does it mean, the string theory is based on lies? It is so unpredictable...
And not just extrapolations, but the fundamental postulates, too (M-theory, F-theory...). Does it mean, the string theory is based on lies? It is so unpredictable... It's called development. New routes and methods are expanded upon, developed, investigated. The same happened with Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, electromagnetics, fluid dynamics, quantum mechanics and relativity. The fact you don't know this is testiment to your lack of understanding of how physics works.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 02:47 PM)
And don't forger, the AWT is still one man show theory, nobody from professional scientists will not help me with this on behalf theirs particular theories, which were developed first. While the string theory is developed by numbers of people, so we should expect some consistency in its development.
It is consistent. You just don't understand how new ideas are expanded upon.
Someone working on 11D M theory isn't working on a different thing entirely from someone doing 10D IIB theory, they are working on a different aspect of it. Someone working on special relativity isn't working on a contradictory theory to someone working on general relativity, just a different aspect of it.
You have no clue about how theories work do you?
Someone working on 11D M theory isn't working on a different thing entirely from someone doing 10D IIB theory, they are working on a different aspect of it. Someone working on special relativity isn't working on a contradictory theory to someone working on general relativity, just a different aspect of it.
You have no clue about how theories work do you?
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jul 14 2007, 02:47 PM)
It's called Relativity theory, because it's still a theory, it's not fact. I've stated this frequently to people, yet they always seem to have trouble comprehending the ramifications of such a statement. They refuse to consider the possibility that whilst relativity may seem to give the right answers, it may be fundamentally wrong as a theory for understanding the universe.
Don't ask me to list it's flaws, because I'm no relativity expert, but I know when something is labelled as a theory, there is the possibility that it therefore may be wrong.
Don't ask me to list it's flaws, because I'm no relativity expert, but I know when something is labelled as a theory, there is the possibility that it therefore may be wrong.
A theory is as close to 'true' as you can get in science. It's got a different meaning to the every day use of the word.
When someone says "I've a theory about...." in day to day conversation, they mean "I have an unsubstantiated hunch about ....". A scientist means "I have a conceptual and predictive framework and model which I have used to create physical predictions, I have tested these predictions and I have found them to match the experiments". Newtonian gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum field theory, they are all models which passed a battery of tests (up to a point in some cases).
It could be the case that a particular theory is never found wrong but it would never be elevated, in correct technical terms, ever beyond a theory.
EVERYTHING model in science has the possibility to be found wrong, hence my previous sentence. You could always have the possibility that a new model will come along which models the experimental results in a better fashion.
But to say "It's a theory, therefore don't trust it" is to ignore what theory really means. It's called "The theory of gravity", but I doubt you jump off high rise buildings.
When someone says "I've a theory about...." in day to day conversation, they mean "I have an unsubstantiated hunch about ....". A scientist means "I have a conceptual and predictive framework and model which I have used to create physical predictions, I have tested these predictions and I have found them to match the experiments". Newtonian gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum field theory, they are all models which passed a battery of tests (up to a point in some cases).
It could be the case that a particular theory is never found wrong but it would never be elevated, in correct technical terms, ever beyond a theory.
EVERYTHING model in science has the possibility to be found wrong, hence my previous sentence. You could always have the possibility that a new model will come along which models the experimental results in a better fashion.
But to say "It's a theory, therefore don't trust it" is to ignore what theory really means. It's called "The theory of gravity", but I doubt you jump off high rise buildings.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 05:37 PM)
When someone says "I've a theory about...." in day to day conversation, they mean "I have an unsubstantiated hunch about ....". A scientist means "I have a conceptual and predictive framework and model which I have used to create physical predictions, I have tested these predictions and I have found them to match the experiments". Newtonian gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum field theory, they are all models which passed a battery of tests (up to a point in some cases).
Alpha, I've been through this with you before, and I answered it in much the same manner - By checking with the dictionary
Theory:
1. A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. The branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. A particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. Contemplation or speculation.
7. Guess or conjecture.
So you see, regardless of what you may 'think' it means. This is what the dictionary says, and the dictionary has the final say on this
I understand the distinction you are making, but the word just simply does not facilitate such a distinction. Well, at least that's what the dictionary says..
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
Alpha, I've been through this with you before, and I answered it in much the same manner - By checking with the dictionary
Theory:
1. A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. The branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. A particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. Contemplation or speculation.
7. Guess or conjecture.
So you see, regardless of what you may 'think' it means. This is what the dictionary says, and the dictionary has the final say on this
I understand the distinction you are making, but the word just simply does not facilitate such a distinction. Well, at least that's what the dictionary says..
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
That's probably why I never say I have a theory I just say what I know and leave it at that. If asked the proper question I can be of help to anyone.
You just mostly underlined the common usage definitions, which I admitted existed, and ignored the mathematical and scientific definitions, or picked single words out. 
The theory in mathematics is a proven result or an encapsulation of a large amount of work. A theory in physics is a collection of ideas, models, conceptual frameworks and results which have lead to a viable description of physical phenomena.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+theory
You seem to think that because a word has an everyday use, it therefore cannot have a different use. I suppose when someone says to you "You have to let concrete set" you reply "How can concrete win 6 games of tennis?" or "This stream is shallow" you reply "How can it have a personality lacking depth?"?
News flash, there's a wide range of mathematical and scientific words which have alternative meanings to their everyday usage. Complete, compact, simple, real, radical. Just a few off the top of my head, which have utterly different meanings of mathematics to everyday usage.
Having just checked "dictionary.com" for it's definition of "simple", it failed to provide the mathematical definition I was thinking of. Oh no, quick, someone burn all the maths textbooks for being wrong!
The theory in mathematics is a proven result or an encapsulation of a large amount of work. A theory in physics is a collection of ideas, models, conceptual frameworks and results which have lead to a viable description of physical phenomena.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+theory
You seem to think that because a word has an everyday use, it therefore cannot have a different use. I suppose when someone says to you "You have to let concrete set" you reply "How can concrete win 6 games of tennis?" or "This stream is shallow" you reply "How can it have a personality lacking depth?"?
News flash, there's a wide range of mathematical and scientific words which have alternative meanings to their everyday usage. Complete, compact, simple, real, radical. Just a few off the top of my head, which have utterly different meanings of mathematics to everyday usage.
Having just checked "dictionary.com" for it's definition of "simple", it failed to provide the mathematical definition I was thinking of. Oh no, quick, someone burn all the maths textbooks for being wrong!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 09:06 PM)
The theory in mathematics is a proven result or an encapsulation of a large amount of work
The theory in mathematics remains a theory, by the same way. like the geocentric model of Ptolemy. The pile of math doesn't makes the theory more relevant, until it doesn't contain the logical explanation of its postulates. It can lead to the question, whether such theory really is a scientific theory at all.
Peter Woit: String Theory: An Evaluation, Is String Theory Unraveling?, Is String Theory testable?, String theory is on the ropes and few hundreds of another opinions (please note, the list bellow is excerpt just in the time period of few months).
The theory in mathematics remains a theory, by the same way. like the geocentric model of Ptolemy. The pile of math doesn't makes the theory more relevant, until it doesn't contain the logical explanation of its postulates. It can lead to the question, whether such theory really is a scientific theory at all.
Peter Woit: String Theory: An Evaluation, Is String Theory Unraveling?, Is String Theory testable?, String theory is on the ropes and few hundreds of another opinions (please note, the list bellow is excerpt just in the time period of few months).
- Nothing gained in search for 'theory of everything', Robert Matthews, Financial Times, June 2, 2006.
- The dean of debunking, John Cornwell, The Sunday Times, June 11, 2006.
- Just as you've solved every problem in the Universe, the string breaks, Anjana Ahuja, The Times, June 12, 2006.
- String weary, Amanda Gefter, New Scientist, July 1, 2006.
- Stringing us along, John Horgan, Prospect, August 2006
- String theory gets knotted, Gordon Fraser, Physics World, August 2006.
- Strung Out, Guy Rundle, Australian Financial Review, August 4, 2006.
- Discussion of NEW by Paul Davies, The Science Show, ABC Radio National (Australia), August 12, 2006.
- Loose ends and Gordian knots of the string cult, Philip Anderson, Times Higher Education Supplement, August 25, 2006.
- Hold fire! This epic vessel has only just set sail..., Leonard Susskind, Times Higher Education Supplement, August 25, 2006.
- All Strung Up, The Economist, September 14, 2006.
- Review, Steven Poole, The Guardian, September 16, 2006.
- Has string theory tied up better ideas in physics Sharon Begley, The Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2006.
- Review, Publisher's Weekly, July 24, 2006.
- String theory is 'not even wrong, Jeffrey Bairstow, LaserFocusWorld, August 2006.
- The Unraveling of String Theory, Michael Lemonick, Time Magazine, August 14, 2006.
- No Strings Attached, Jack W. Weigel, Library Journal, August 15, 2006.
- No Strings Attached, Charles Seife, Seed Magazine, August/September 2006.
- Tangled Up In Strings, Tim Folger, Discover Magazine, September 2006.
- The Inelegant Universe, George Johnson, Scientific American, September 2006.
- A Great Unraveling, Tom Siegfried, New York Times Sunday Book Review, September 17, 2006.
- Resisting the Supremacy of String Theory, Anthony Doerr, Boston Globe, September 17, 2006.
- String Theory: Hanging on by a Thread?, Dan Vergano, USA Today, September 19, 2006.
- Is String Theory Unraveling?, JR Minkel, Scientific American, September 25, 2006.
- Six Numbers in Search of a Theory, Michael Shermer, New York Sun, September 27, 2006.
- Unstrung, Jim Holt, The New Yorker, October 2, 2006.
- Review by John Walker, Fourmilog, June 8, 2006.
- The String Theory Backlash, Cosmic Variance, June 19, 2006.
- String Theory A Disaster for Physics Slashdot, June 23, 2006.
- String Theory, Quark Soup, June 24, 2006.
- Pulling the Plug on Strings, The Scientific Curmudgeon, June 29, 2006.
- Our Oficial Non-Endorsement, Axes and Alleys, July 1, 2006.
- Review, Sience a GoGo, July 6, 2006.
- Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong, Backreaction, July 10, 2006.
- Review by Aaron Bergman, The String Coffee Table, August 19, 2006.
- Review, Popular Science web-site.
- Review, Uncertain Principles, September 12, 2006.
- A Theory of Nothing?, Capitalist Imperialist Pig, September 20, 2006.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 07:46 PM)
The theory in mathematics remains a theory, by the same way. like the geocentric model of Ptolemy.
You fail to realise the difference between mathematics and physics.
You fail to realise the difference between mathematics and physics.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 07:46 PM)
The pile of math doesn't makes the theory more relevant, until it doesn't contain the logical explanation of its postulates. It can lead to the question, whether such theory really is a scientific theory at all.
It's the method by which experimental predictions of a precise nature are derived.
Not that you'd know
Not that you'd know
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 07:46 PM)
Peter Woit: String Theory: An Evaluation, Is String Theory Unraveling?, Is String Theory testable?, String theory is on the ropes and few hundreds of another opinions (please note, the list bellow is excerpt just in the time period of few months).
And I can list plenty of people who talk positively about string theory.
Besides, surely you take the view that the majority (or in Woit's case, large minority) can't be right. Otherwise Galileo was wrong, the Catholic Church was wrong. Einstein is right, Newton is wrong. I'm right, AWT is wrong.
Your entire viewpoint about AWT is "The view of large groups doesn't always have to be true" then you use precisely the opposite to try to back up your claims! Contradicting yourself again.
Let's let the results speak for themselves. AWT? Nothing. String theory? Gravitation, black hole thermodynamics, CMB power spectrum, no UV divergences (which plague QED and QCD). And plenty more but you don't understand the details.
Oh well, by Galileo's criteria, scientific criteria and even Woit's criteria, AWT fails. Suprise suprise.
/edit
I like how half (or even most) of your list is made up of book reviews (book reviewers are hardly in a good position to evaluate a cutting edge physics model) or just "Popular science website". Making stuff up much?
You should be linking to scientific published papers, not to "Mr Bob reviews 'Not even wrong'". Such a review has nothing to do with the scientific merit of string theory, but someone's view of someone else's method of description of string theory. A very different thing.
You're having to scrape the barrel just to make your claims seem close to viable and all the while failing to provide a single thing in support of AWT!
Besides, surely you take the view that the majority (or in Woit's case, large minority) can't be right. Otherwise Galileo was wrong, the Catholic Church was wrong. Einstein is right, Newton is wrong. I'm right, AWT is wrong.
Your entire viewpoint about AWT is "The view of large groups doesn't always have to be true" then you use precisely the opposite to try to back up your claims!
Contradicting yourself again.Let's let the results speak for themselves. AWT? Nothing. String theory? Gravitation, black hole thermodynamics, CMB power spectrum, no UV divergences (which plague QED and QCD). And plenty more but you don't understand the details.
Oh well, by Galileo's criteria, scientific criteria and even Woit's criteria, AWT fails. Suprise suprise.
/edit
I like how half (or even most) of your list is made up of book reviews (book reviewers are hardly in a good position to evaluate a cutting edge physics model) or just "Popular science website". Making stuff up much?
You should be linking to scientific published papers, not to "Mr Bob reviews 'Not even wrong'". Such a review has nothing to do with the scientific merit of string theory, but someone's view of someone else's method of description of string theory. A very different thing.
You're having to scrape the barrel just to make your claims seem close to viable and all the while failing to provide a single thing in support of AWT!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 09:57 PM)
Your entire viewpoint about AWT is "The view of large groups doesn't always have to be true"
Yes, indeed.
While the string theories group is usually presented as a mainstream science opinion, they're not less or more true, then every other quantum field theory , based on the number of ad-hoced postulates without deeper consistent philosophy.
After all, what's so special about string theory? The charismatic Brian Greene's TV shows or his apologetic, but completely naive books?
Yes, indeed.
While the string theories group is usually presented as a mainstream science opinion, they're not less or more true, then every other quantum field theory , based on the number of ad-hoced postulates without deeper consistent philosophy.
After all, what's so special about string theory? The charismatic Brian Greene's TV shows or his apologetic, but completely naive books?
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 08:06 PM)
then every other quantum field theory , based on the number of ad-hoced postulates without deeper consistent philosophy.
The fact you don't understand the reasoning or requirement behind many QFT postulates doesn't make them ad hoc. It just means you're too stupid, ignorant, lazy or all three to understand.
Since AWT ad hoc's all results, it provides no understanding at all. All you can do it take other, mainstream theory, results and reword them into "AWT's view" in the hopes others mistake mainstream views for your own, with an aether twist. The fact so many people can understand mainstream material without the need of an aether/inertial concept is testiment to the conceptual framework laid out by mainstream physics.
The fact you don't understand the reasoning or requirement behind many QFT postulates doesn't make them ad hoc. It just means you're too stupid, ignorant, lazy or all three to understand.
Since AWT ad hoc's all results, it provides no understanding at all. All you can do it take other, mainstream theory, results and reword them into "AWT's view" in the hopes others mistake mainstream views for your own, with an aether twist. The fact so many people can understand mainstream material without the need of an aether/inertial concept is testiment to the conceptual framework laid out by mainstream physics.
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 14 2007, 08:06 PM)
After all, what's so special about string theory? The charismatic Brian Greene's TV shows or his apologetic, but completely naive books?
And we're back to "Spoon feed me information you've told me before, I can find (and have) on Google or Wikipedia and I'll ignore it all over again".
You have been on these forums long enough and I've corrected you enough times for you to know the pros of string theory. I've specifically outlined them to you in the past and I have provided numerous book references, website links, explainations in my own words and even published papers. You either ignored, didn't bother to read or failed to understand them all.
Besides, your question is a loaded one. Neither answer you give is the correct one but you simply ask the question in the hopes of trapping me.
Again, you resort to attempts at bending the truth, lying and slights of hand. All the time under the misconception that if I "see the light" and decide string theory is wrong, it'll change my mind about AWT. Wrong. Another example of your terrible logic.
Our discussion is apt for this thread title. It shows how cranks like you will lie without shame in the fruitless hope of looking like you aren't a complete idiot.
You have been on these forums long enough and I've corrected you enough times for you to know the pros of string theory. I've specifically outlined them to you in the past and I have provided numerous book references, website links, explainations in my own words and even published papers. You either ignored, didn't bother to read or failed to understand them all.
Besides, your question is a loaded one. Neither answer you give is the correct one but you simply ask the question in the hopes of trapping me.
Again, you resort to attempts at bending the truth, lying and slights of hand. All the time under the misconception that if I "see the light" and decide string theory is wrong, it'll change my mind about AWT. Wrong. Another example of your terrible logic.
Our discussion is apt for this thread title. It shows how cranks like you will lie without shame in the fruitless hope of looking like you aren't a complete idiot.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 10:42 PM)
The fact you don't understand the reasoning or requirement behind many QFT postulates doesn't make them ad hoc
QFT are based on quantum mechanics and I can can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Why? Because the consistent, generally accepted interpretation of QM is still missing and those of AWT is ignored.
Richard P. Feynman:
"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics ."
You just mostly underlined the common usage definitions, which I admitted existed, and ignored the mathematical and scientific definitions, or picked single words out.
I grabbed all the definitions that there were within the dictionary. You can go check the link yourself, to see that I did not cherry pick anything. In none of them were definitions as you believe Theory to be.
The theory in mathematics is a proven result or an encapsulation of a large amount of work. A theory in physics is a collection of ideas, models, conceptual frameworks and results which have lead to a viable description of physical phenomena.
This is of course your own personal definition of the word, but personal definitions are irrelevant and the dictionary clearly lays out the actual definitions of the word. In none of this does it state that a theory must have experimental evidence/results, for it to be considered a theory.
You seem to think that because a word has an everyday use, it therefore cannot have a different use.
If such a use existed, then the dictionary would typically define it as one.
News flash, there's a wide range of mathematical and scientific words which have alternative meanings to their everyday usage. Complete, compact, simple, real, radical. Just a few off the top of my head, which have utterly different meanings of mathematics to everyday usage.
Yes, and all of those have their mathematical meanings within the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complete
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compact
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/real
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical
For all of these, if you scroll down, there are mathematical definitions outlined.
Take Real, for example:
11. Mathematics.
a. Of, pertaining to, or having the value of a real number.
b. Using real numbers: real analysis; real vector space.
So when we look at the word 'Theory' - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
This has a mathematical definition on there, yet nowhere at all on there is there a requirement for a 'Theory' to have scientific evidence/results in order to be considered by the word.
Your arguement just does not hold up to the above analysis.
Having just checked "dictionary.com" for it's definition of "simple", it failed to provide the mathematical definition I was thinking of. Oh no, quick, someone burn all the maths textbooks for being wrong!
It provided an alternative word definition, if it is the one you were seeking. Note that all four other words had mathematical definitions for them. But what is the point you are trying to make here? - That the dictionary is not perfect? I already knew that, but we are dealing with a very common word, and it's unlikely that the dictionary has missed the definition that you are arguing for. Unlike the likely obscure mathematical definition you are seeking. Besides, how do we know it's not just another case of the same thing? You might have a misconception about the version of Simple, just like you have a misconception about the word Theory, for all I know.
Alpha, I'm going to stick with what the dictionary says, because it's from an official source.
I say we agree to disagree, because this arguement is non-physics related, more semantic related, and is plain uninteresting
QFT are based on quantum mechanics and I can can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. Why? Because the consistent, generally accepted interpretation of QM is still missing and those of AWT is ignored.
Richard P. Feynman:
"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics ."
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 14 2007, 10:42 PM)
...AWT ad hoc's all results, it provides no understanding at all...
The AWT just provides the missing link for mainstream physics: the understanding. Which other theory provides so such illustrative explanations of relativistic Doppler shift, twins paradox, superconductivity, quantum wave, light speed invariance, spin symmetry, Lorentz transform and contraction, abelian and non-abelian transforms, electromagnetic field spreading, charge and electroweak interaction, inflation, space-time expansion, dimensions, Lagrangian and compactification, renormalization, particle generations, , birefringence of vacuum, imaginary and/or multiple time concept, double slit experiment and deBroglie wave, quantum entanglement, Higgs mechanism, motion in the gravitational field, Lie group and string net liquid concept, quarks, neutrinos, electron and proton, gravitons, photons, accretion radiation, cp-symmetry violation and/or quasars formation and black hole interior and Universe generations, not saying on the background of the single consistent theory?
The AWT just provides the missing link for mainstream physics: the understanding. Which other theory provides so such illustrative explanations of relativistic Doppler shift, twins paradox, superconductivity, quantum wave, light speed invariance, spin symmetry, Lorentz transform and contraction, abelian and non-abelian transforms, electromagnetic field spreading, charge and electroweak interaction, inflation, space-time expansion, dimensions, Lagrangian and compactification, renormalization, particle generations, , birefringence of vacuum, imaginary and/or multiple time concept, double slit experiment and deBroglie wave, quantum entanglement, Higgs mechanism, motion in the gravitational field, Lie group and string net liquid concept, quarks, neutrinos, electron and proton, gravitons, photons, accretion radiation, cp-symmetry violation and/or quasars formation and black hole interior and Universe generations, not saying on the background of the single consistent theory?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You just mostly underlined the common usage definitions, which I admitted existed, and ignored the mathematical and scientific definitions, or picked single words out.
I grabbed all the definitions that there were within the dictionary. You can go check the link yourself, to see that I did not cherry pick anything. In none of them were definitions as you believe Theory to be.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
The theory in mathematics is a proven result or an encapsulation of a large amount of work. A theory in physics is a collection of ideas, models, conceptual frameworks and results which have lead to a viable description of physical phenomena.
This is of course your own personal definition of the word, but personal definitions are irrelevant and the dictionary clearly lays out the actual definitions of the word. In none of this does it state that a theory must have experimental evidence/results, for it to be considered a theory.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
You seem to think that because a word has an everyday use, it therefore cannot have a different use.
If such a use existed, then the dictionary would typically define it as one.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
News flash, there's a wide range of mathematical and scientific words which have alternative meanings to their everyday usage. Complete, compact, simple, real, radical. Just a few off the top of my head, which have utterly different meanings of mathematics to everyday usage.
Yes, and all of those have their mathematical meanings within the dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complete
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compact
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/real
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/radical
For all of these, if you scroll down, there are mathematical definitions outlined.
Take Real, for example:
11. Mathematics.
a. Of, pertaining to, or having the value of a real number.
b. Using real numbers: real analysis; real vector space.
So when we look at the word 'Theory' - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
This has a mathematical definition on there, yet nowhere at all on there is there a requirement for a 'Theory' to have scientific evidence/results in order to be considered by the word.
Your arguement just does not hold up to the above analysis.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+)
Having just checked "dictionary.com" for it's definition of "simple", it failed to provide the mathematical definition I was thinking of. Oh no, quick, someone burn all the maths textbooks for being wrong!
It provided an alternative word definition, if it is the one you were seeking. Note that all four other words had mathematical definitions for them. But what is the point you are trying to make here? - That the dictionary is not perfect? I already knew that, but we are dealing with a very common word, and it's unlikely that the dictionary has missed the definition that you are arguing for. Unlike the likely obscure mathematical definition you are seeking. Besides, how do we know it's not just another case of the same thing? You might have a misconception about the version of Simple, just like you have a misconception about the word Theory, for all I know.
Alpha, I'm going to stick with what the dictionary says, because it's from an official source.
I say we agree to disagree, because this arguement is non-physics related, more semantic related, and is plain uninteresting
Unfortunelly,mr.alphanumeric-continue parroting the wikipedia.
Bryn Richards:
What the Dictionary lacks is context. It provides no context for which meanings are used in which sense so people look at the 'every day' definition, the last one on the list and say "Oh, that must apply to science as well" which is almost exactly what you're doing at the moment.
Just to prove how wrong you are, I went into my library (yes, the house I own has a room entirely devoted to books) and hauled out two of my dictionaries (i'd have hauled out a third one, but i'm not sure where it is, and my wife is sleeping).
Theory n, pl -ries:
1. a. A systematically organised knowledge applicable in a wide variety of circumstances: especially, a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and riles of procedure devised to analyse, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behaviour of a given set of phenomena: the theory of evolution, Marxist economic theory.
b. Broadly, an set of beliefs or suppositions serving as a basis for action.
2. a. That part of a subject dealing with its underlying rules and principles; abstract principles as distinct from practice or experiment: musical theory.
b. The realm of abstract speculation or ideal circumstances: In theory it should only take a week
3. Broadly, a hypothesis or supposition, an opinion. [Late Latin theoria, from Greek, contemplation, theory, from theoros, spectator, from theasthai, to observe, from thea, a viewing]
So, Alphanumeric is addressing specific case, the way science treats theorys, or rather, the meaning of 'theory' within science, so we can rule out the definitions that start with 'Broadly', we're not talking about theory v's practice, so the 2a can be ruled out.
This leaves us with definition 1a and 2b, and as anyone can clearly see from the context given to those two definitions, the first one is addressing the meaning of the word theory within science, and the second one is addressing the meaning of the word theory within the common parlance.
The other dictionary I was able to find didn't give a definition of 'Theory'.
What the Dictionary lacks is context. It provides no context for which meanings are used in which sense so people look at the 'every day' definition, the last one on the list and say "Oh, that must apply to science as well" which is almost exactly what you're doing at the moment.
Just to prove how wrong you are, I went into my library (yes, the house I own has a room entirely devoted to books) and hauled out two of my dictionaries (i'd have hauled out a third one, but i'm not sure where it is, and my wife is sleeping).
QUOTE (Readers Digest Great Illustrated Dictionary+)
Theory n, pl -ries:
1. a. A systematically organised knowledge applicable in a wide variety of circumstances: especially, a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and riles of procedure devised to analyse, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behaviour of a given set of phenomena: the theory of evolution, Marxist economic theory.
b. Broadly, an set of beliefs or suppositions serving as a basis for action.
2. a. That part of a subject dealing with its underlying rules and principles; abstract principles as distinct from practice or experiment: musical theory.
b. The realm of abstract speculation or ideal circumstances: In theory it should only take a week
3. Broadly, a hypothesis or supposition, an opinion. [Late Latin theoria, from Greek, contemplation, theory, from theoros, spectator, from theasthai, to observe, from thea, a viewing]
So, Alphanumeric is addressing specific case, the way science treats theorys, or rather, the meaning of 'theory' within science, so we can rule out the definitions that start with 'Broadly', we're not talking about theory v's practice, so the 2a can be ruled out.
This leaves us with definition 1a and 2b, and as anyone can clearly see from the context given to those two definitions, the first one is addressing the meaning of the word theory within science, and the second one is addressing the meaning of the word theory within the common parlance.
The other dictionary I was able to find didn't give a definition of 'Theory'.
Zephir:
I realized a seeming contradiction in some of the things that you've been saying about AWT that I would like you to adress.
You (have) claim(ed) that Matter is unstable in the vacuum.
You (have) claim(ed) that Matter evaporates in the vacuum.
You (have) claim(ed) that this process is what powers QUASARs.
You (have) claim(ed) that this process is what powers the sun.
And yet we can observe asteroids (and moons) that are in direct contact with the vacuum, and yet show NO signs of having undergone ANY evaporative processes in the 4.5 BILLION years they have been exposed to thevacuum for.
How do you address this contradiction?
I realized a seeming contradiction in some of the things that you've been saying about AWT that I would like you to adress.
You (have) claim(ed) that Matter is unstable in the vacuum.
You (have) claim(ed) that Matter evaporates in the vacuum.
You (have) claim(ed) that this process is what powers QUASARs.
You (have) claim(ed) that this process is what powers the sun.
And yet we can observe asteroids (and moons) that are in direct contact with the vacuum, and yet show NO signs of having undergone ANY evaporative processes in the 4.5 BILLION years they have been exposed to thevacuum for.
How do you address this contradiction?
QUOTE (Euler+Jul 14 2007, 10:06 AM)
This really doesn't help you project a high intellectual standpoint. In fact, it seems to just reinforce the fact that you don't seem to be very bright.
Now at least contemplate sparking off a few neurons before responding - otherwise it's like you're doing all the work for me, and that's no fun. I wouldn't call people like you idiots, if I didn't think you were very much lacking the brain dept. The possibility of you people having an intellect to speak of, on any level, is slim-to-none.
As has been pointed out to you several times since: rpenner's post actually supports what I was saying. However, you're either too stupid to realise this, or too determined to cling on to something you hope would support your standpoint. Neither does you well.
All you've managed to do in your last few child-like responses, is cement down what many people probably already thought of you. What's sad, is that there are thousands of people, just like you, who have decided that it would be nice to play pretend physics on the internet. This medium gives you the opportunity to spout rubbish without much question, allows you to read a wiki article so you can pretend to know about the subject, stroke each others egos by talking about your own "theories"... the list goes on. I think what a lot of you don't realise, is quite how common idiots like yourselves are: there are people the world over spouting rubbish on a daily basis, sending letters to leading academics, proclaiming on the internet to be doing something amazing and a host of other silly things.
What this thread was an attempt at, was to find the underlying reason why people such as yourself would prefer to be held in such a regard. Instead of making the effort to learn (even together!) the basics of physics, so that in time you can actually speak about the subject with some form of competency.
Now at least contemplate sparking off a few neurons before responding - otherwise it's like you're doing all the work for me, and that's no fun. I wouldn't call people like you idiots, if I didn't think you were very much lacking the brain dept. The possibility of you people having an intellect to speak of, on any level, is slim-to-none.
As has been pointed out to you several times since: rpenner's post actually supports what I was saying. However, you're either too stupid to realise this, or too determined to cling on to something you hope would support your standpoint. Neither does you well.
All you've managed to do in your last few child-like responses, is cement down what many people probably already thought of you. What's sad, is that there are thousands of people, just like you, who have decided that it would be nice to play pretend physics on the internet. This medium gives you the opportunity to spout rubbish without much question, allows you to read a wiki article so you can pretend to know about the subject, stroke each others egos by talking about your own "theories"... the list goes on. I think what a lot of you don't realise, is quite how common idiots like yourselves are: there are people the world over spouting rubbish on a daily basis, sending letters to leading academics, proclaiming on the internet to be doing something amazing and a host of other silly things.
What this thread was an attempt at, was to find the underlying reason why people such as yourself would prefer to be held in such a regard. Instead of making the effort to learn (even together!) the basics of physics, so that in time you can actually speak about the subject with some form of competency.